something isn't right. insulin shouldn't be something that a start up couldn't do to bring down the prices. Something unfair is happening
4
Maybe our government should remove or shorten medical patents and allow a generic market to compete? Wouldn't it be nice if lobbying was also illegal? Canada has a strong generic pharmaceutical market which keeps big pharma in check.
This is why Hillary cannot be President. She has been in the pocket of Big Pharma for years. She currently tops 2016 donations from Big Pharma. When she was Senator she supported Government sponsored healthcare, then switch to Single Payer, then magically didn't like either right about the same time Big Pharma and private hospitals started lining her pockets. She claims she's for the working and middle classes, yet her history and present clearly show otherwise.
This is why Hillary cannot be President. She has been in the pocket of Big Pharma for years. She currently tops 2016 donations from Big Pharma. When she was Senator she supported Government sponsored healthcare, then switch to Single Payer, then magically didn't like either right about the same time Big Pharma and private hospitals started lining her pockets. She claims she's for the working and middle classes, yet her history and present clearly show otherwise.
2
Why is it I can buy a tube of Voltaren, an anti-inflammatory cream in Mexico for $5USD a tube (without a doctor appointment/prescription) but have to pay $70 USD a tube in the US (plus the cost of the doctor appointment)?
The answer - PACs, Lobbyist and a political system that is as corrupt as any third world country only our politicians call the vote buying "horse trading".
The answer - PACs, Lobbyist and a political system that is as corrupt as any third world country only our politicians call the vote buying "horse trading".
7
After years of hearing "It's Bush's fault." the next few years are going to be refreshing:
It's Obama's fault.
It's Obama's fault.
1
In my opinion the reason for the drug cost increase is the legalization of marijuana the very last thing drug companies want. Finally the United States is moving in a direction that would allow millions of people access to a drug that can be grown, is safe with no two page adverse reaction disclosure and will do more good for patents than the half batched drugs sold to the public. Drug companies don't want to cure a problem, they want to maintain the problem. Given the option I would opt for Marijuana for chronic pain than any drug sold. Mother nature provided us with a remedy for many ailments, drug companies wasn't one of them, they are just the oldest drug pushers in town. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
2
Andrew Witty, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, recently called for de-linking the price of drugs from their research costs. He suggests that governments reimburse drug companies on a cost-plus basis for their research and allow new drugs to be sold as generics.
Bernie Sanders' platform (not Hillary Clinton's) is to regulate monopolist price setters.
Our elected representatives (and the think tanks their donors and corporate news media use) never even factor in the negative economic impact of higher drug prices, when modeling the economic impact we can expect from disastrous trade agreements that really aren't about imcreasing free trade. Each one is part of a process of creating ever stronger and longer patent protections, for ever larger gaps between the protected price of drugs and their free market price.
Our administration is also pressuring the Indian government to give up flexibilities granted under TRIPS, to ensure U.S. drug companies can get ever higher prices from their drugs as protections are extended more broadly around the world.
The increase in comorbidity and mortality just from the mismarketing of 5 drugs since NAFTA cost us more than pharma spent in all research: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/patent-monopolies-and-the-costs-of-...
We could pilot publicly funded clinical trials without disturbing our 17th century patent system: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/publicly-funded-clinical-trials-a-r...
Bernie Sanders' platform (not Hillary Clinton's) is to regulate monopolist price setters.
Our elected representatives (and the think tanks their donors and corporate news media use) never even factor in the negative economic impact of higher drug prices, when modeling the economic impact we can expect from disastrous trade agreements that really aren't about imcreasing free trade. Each one is part of a process of creating ever stronger and longer patent protections, for ever larger gaps between the protected price of drugs and their free market price.
Our administration is also pressuring the Indian government to give up flexibilities granted under TRIPS, to ensure U.S. drug companies can get ever higher prices from their drugs as protections are extended more broadly around the world.
The increase in comorbidity and mortality just from the mismarketing of 5 drugs since NAFTA cost us more than pharma spent in all research: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/patent-monopolies-and-the-costs-of-...
We could pilot publicly funded clinical trials without disturbing our 17th century patent system: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/publicly-funded-clinical-trials-a-r...
2
The problem with drug prices is the same as with charges in health care generally -- hard to tell what they mean, no effective competitive forces constraining them, and most impacting those least able to pay them. The solution is not more regulation of them than getting rid of our convoluted system of "negotiated" prices. See: http://kimbellardblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/there-they-go-again.html
2
When will we excise the term "healthcare" from these discussions. We don't have a "healthcare" system, we have a "health insurance industry". Healthcare hasn't been a priority at any level above the direct practioner for years.
12
There are two things not mentioned here. First is that the same drugs by the same companies, either under their own names or through subsidiaries, are selling the drugs overseas for far less than in the US. In effect, we, the citizens of the US, are underwriting lower costs for the rest of the world. Reduction in prices here could be accomplished by raising prices overseas without hurting bottom lines. Secondly, most companies are not plowing their profits into basic research but, rather, recycling old drugs. Much of the basic research is done in government labs. Lowering prices, and/or paying the government, would go a long way to building a more socially beneficial system.
5
It's nonsensical to believe that raising prices elsewhere will causes prices here to drop. The pharmaceutical companies are maximizing their profits in each market separately. As long as they can charge what they will in the US, the prices will not drop here.
3
There is another 'hidden cost" to the maneuvering by CVS, and other pharmacy management firms, to negotiate lower pricing (to them). Frequent changes in their formulary, that require patients to go back to Doctors to change prescriptions.
In my case, CVS chooses to cover only one drug (out of 4 available) in a class for a common chronic condition that I have. Each year they switch suppliers to get a lower price. This requires me to schedule a visit to my Physician to change the RX to their new, replacement, drug.
One drug works well for me, two are less effective; requiring an extra supplementary drug to get effective treatment. One has serious side effects from long term use. These are not "complex, specialty drugs". CVS is just relentless in their pursuit of profit, and the quality of patient care is lower as a result.
In my case, CVS chooses to cover only one drug (out of 4 available) in a class for a common chronic condition that I have. Each year they switch suppliers to get a lower price. This requires me to schedule a visit to my Physician to change the RX to their new, replacement, drug.
One drug works well for me, two are less effective; requiring an extra supplementary drug to get effective treatment. One has serious side effects from long term use. These are not "complex, specialty drugs". CVS is just relentless in their pursuit of profit, and the quality of patient care is lower as a result.
8
We don't just need interstate competition on pricing of pharmaceuticals and insurance, we need international competition. Why do we have to pay more than Canadians for so many drugs? Healthcare is a right. So is competitive
pricing for drugs.
pricing for drugs.
2
Socialized Medication
The development of new drugs is expensive and availability generally depends upon anticipated profits as much as effectiveness. Profit in turn depends on government granted monopoly (patents) and demand. Research driven by profit will favor a weight loss drug over a cure for rare and even fatal disease. A minor improvement on a profitable drug for the purpose of extending the term of the patent can be quite good for the shareholder’s bottom line. Legal monopoly can destroy competition and slow progress in medicine.
Joe Biden will spend his final year in office attempting to cure cancer by encouraging a wider sharing of research data which is often directly or indirectly funded by government. Imagine the progress that could be made if Big Parma were socialized at least to the extent of rules that would put treatment over profit. Better still, imagine if all medications were free. Advances in medication would quickly improve health care. Cures would help the patient and the taxpayer.
Obamacare has done some good and some harm. Free medication and government managed research would do much more good. All health insurance would be reduced by 15% and primary care doctors would be guided by the best available research rather than the latest samples or advertising by big Pharma. When the GOP votes again to eliminate Obamacare and the next president does not veto the bill; socialized medication should be considered as an a compromise gift for all.
The development of new drugs is expensive and availability generally depends upon anticipated profits as much as effectiveness. Profit in turn depends on government granted monopoly (patents) and demand. Research driven by profit will favor a weight loss drug over a cure for rare and even fatal disease. A minor improvement on a profitable drug for the purpose of extending the term of the patent can be quite good for the shareholder’s bottom line. Legal monopoly can destroy competition and slow progress in medicine.
Joe Biden will spend his final year in office attempting to cure cancer by encouraging a wider sharing of research data which is often directly or indirectly funded by government. Imagine the progress that could be made if Big Parma were socialized at least to the extent of rules that would put treatment over profit. Better still, imagine if all medications were free. Advances in medication would quickly improve health care. Cures would help the patient and the taxpayer.
Obamacare has done some good and some harm. Free medication and government managed research would do much more good. All health insurance would be reduced by 15% and primary care doctors would be guided by the best available research rather than the latest samples or advertising by big Pharma. When the GOP votes again to eliminate Obamacare and the next president does not veto the bill; socialized medication should be considered as an a compromise gift for all.
4
Imagine if the government told McDonnell Douglas or Raytheon, "Go ahead and set whatever price you want for the military equipment we ordered. We won't try to negotiate that down."
Yet the government is legally bound to do precisely that to pharmaceutical companies.
Yet the government is legally bound to do precisely that to pharmaceutical companies.
1
Our political leaders need to do more than just criticize high drug prices - they need to regulate them like the necessary good that they are.
5
I'm sure you know that the 1987 Drug Reimportation Act caused our drug prices to rise to double those in European nations and Mexico, while only 30% less in Canada. So entitlement programs get rebates [otherwise called "kickbacks" of 50% in Medicaid and Federal Supply System and 35% in Medicare, while the VA gets 60%.
So the driver of drug prices is the federal government as nobody now knows the "delivered price" of any drug, as everyone gest a better price and they are constantly changing. But in the rest of the world prices are decreasing, as competition drives them downward, mainly because that is where the drugs are all made; while the United states no longer produces drugs! Most of our drugs are made in India or China, where the FDA can't effectively inspect production facilities for drugs or Foods, which some 20% of ours come from. Only the patents remain here while the expensive "new drugs" can't even be patented, so we pass trade Acts to keep our prices high. So go abroad for healthcare why don't we?
If we don't pay we simply won't get any drugs, let alone a decent price. It's just like steel, cars, cookies and air conditioning; except this affects all our lives!
So the driver of drug prices is the federal government as nobody now knows the "delivered price" of any drug, as everyone gest a better price and they are constantly changing. But in the rest of the world prices are decreasing, as competition drives them downward, mainly because that is where the drugs are all made; while the United states no longer produces drugs! Most of our drugs are made in India or China, where the FDA can't effectively inspect production facilities for drugs or Foods, which some 20% of ours come from. Only the patents remain here while the expensive "new drugs" can't even be patented, so we pass trade Acts to keep our prices high. So go abroad for healthcare why don't we?
If we don't pay we simply won't get any drugs, let alone a decent price. It's just like steel, cars, cookies and air conditioning; except this affects all our lives!
2
I take an expensive drug for type 2 diabetes called Tradjenta. I am a senior citizen and every year I have to find a new Medicare D provider since the coverage of this drug is constantly being changed or dropped completely. I finally started buying it from Canada but now that New York only uses electronic prescriptions, I will no longer be able to get a paper hard copy to send to Canada to buy my medication at an affordable price. The rationalization behind electronic prescriptions is to have more control of the over prescribing of controlled substances but as you can see, it will also make the cost of my diabetes med go through the roof.
4
It appears there's still a way to get a paper prescription. I won't post the direct link because I don't know if links are allowed in these comments, but do a search for "how to get a paper prescription when e prescribing is required". It'll bring up an article about what to do in New York. Good luck.
2
Let’s not forget how the Democrats made the “Deal” with big Pharma to not oppose the ACA with the no importation of drugs law in the ACA they passed. The ACA now costing 130 billion per year and headed north, plus the extra’s that we are paying for drugs and health insurance.
2
According to Scientific American, only two countries in the world are subjected to broadcast ads for prescription medications; New Zealand and the USA. Not only does the cost of advertising drive drug costs higher, the advertising creates unrealistic expectations and pressure on doctors to prescribe. Add this phenomena to the unholy alliance that exists between politicians and the drug manufacturers and one can see the cards are stacked against the American consumer. The next time you hear a politician make the statement "excessive government regulation" they are advocating for unfettered "GREED". No government entity should be barred from negotiating lower drug prices. It is time to put an end to this tragic nonsense.
3
Could someone please explain the rationale on why Medicare is barred by law from negotiating prices?
As a Government Agency using tax payers money wouldn't the first priority be to to get value for money for the Program which is huge enough to have the serious clout and budget to expect discounts anyway?
The Republicans are so keen to stop waste and excess in Government and curb Government spending so as to fix the Deficit and ensure that tax payers monies are being best and most wisely used.
So how in God's name could ANYONE justify that Medicare CANNOT negotiate better prices?
That is NOT free Market policy at all!
As a Government Agency using tax payers money wouldn't the first priority be to to get value for money for the Program which is huge enough to have the serious clout and budget to expect discounts anyway?
The Republicans are so keen to stop waste and excess in Government and curb Government spending so as to fix the Deficit and ensure that tax payers monies are being best and most wisely used.
So how in God's name could ANYONE justify that Medicare CANNOT negotiate better prices?
That is NOT free Market policy at all!
6
Switzerland has very high costs. While the standard of living is very high we pay more, often much more, for goods and services than neighbouring countries and the USA. The four buck coffee is not a myth. Starbucks in Geneva charges a lot more than that.
So why is it that a box of five Lantus Solostar Insulin pens that cost over $400 in the US (Internet search, there are likely discounts) cost less than the equivalent of $100 here. (Even less across the border in France.) The only difference is the packaging.
So why is it that a box of five Lantus Solostar Insulin pens that cost over $400 in the US (Internet search, there are likely discounts) cost less than the equivalent of $100 here. (Even less across the border in France.) The only difference is the packaging.
3
Why are the same drugs cheaper in Canada?
Or, better placed, why do the drugs cost more in the US than in Canada?
Or, better placed, why do the drugs cost more in the US than in Canada?
2
The public demanded to be kept alive longer so the pharmaceutical companies devoted designer drugs. We now have a national health care program where you are paying for everyone. You get what you pay for and you cannot have it both ways.
Are drug prices rising for everyone, or just the U.S.
What's new? This is business as usual when it comes to corporate thievery.
4
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean is a lobbyist for the drug industry these days. And so it goes.
2
I have been on a live altering brand medication for many years -- the generic just did not work as well as it should have -- and this medication has been around for at least 20 years. I recently received a called from FutureScripts asking for permission to charge my credit card $2,020 for a 90 day supply because my annual deductible had not yet been met. Ha! I nearly died. I was advised to have my doctor submit an appeal; she told me it is almost impossible to win on appeal. Then I checked on my supply. I already had enough of the medication in stock. In fact, my husband and I always have extra bottles of most of prescriptions, because they always send stuff when we don't need them. In one case, I have well over a year's worth of medication. Luckily, I was able to tell FutureScripts that I didn't need the medication for 3 more months. Hopefully, I will have met my family deductible by then. Or else, it's going to be $2,020 for that medication. (BTW, I have paid over $600 for a prescription, but never something as ridiculous as this one would have been.)
2
Oh, by the way...
"As Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Board at EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING CO, George Paz made $14,835,587 in total compensation. Of this total $1,324,058 was received as a salary, $3,005,635 was received as a bonus, $3,416,667 was received in stock options, $6,833,333 was awarded as stock and $255,894 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2015 fiscal year."
Nice work if you can get it.
http://www1.salary.com/George-Paz-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-EXPRESS...
"As Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Board at EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING CO, George Paz made $14,835,587 in total compensation. Of this total $1,324,058 was received as a salary, $3,005,635 was received as a bonus, $3,416,667 was received in stock options, $6,833,333 was awarded as stock and $255,894 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2015 fiscal year."
Nice work if you can get it.
http://www1.salary.com/George-Paz-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-EXPRESS...
3
The patented drug prices are a most severe problem for humanity. If I say this, few would be convinced. This must be hyperbole to the extreme one would think. The public is too ignorant of this reality.
I have been extremely concerned about this aspect of patented drug prices for the past 20 yrs. or so. But when I discussed among both educated lay people & physicians, they would come up with the stock & universal responses, "Without such profits how can they come up with novel lifesaving drugs to benefit humanity?" They don't see that drug companies price their products something like very many-fold more the actual cost of making the drug. If for instance Aspirin is priced at $10/325 mg tablet, that would be seen as outrageous. Many newer fancy drugs are priced that outrageously.
For example the lifesaving 3-drug cocktail for AIDS was patented in 1996. Its price is still over $10K/yr./patient, far beyond the affordability of 95+% of afflicted patients. About 34 million patients died of AIDS, creating some 11 million AIDS orphans mostly in Africa. An estimated 10 million preventable deaths occurred in Africa; now they procure it for <$100. If they sold at this price to Africa & other Third World back in 1996 or '97, almost half of that 34 million deaths could have been prevented.
The drug companies must have known this. They didn't care. Should the senior executives of the respective drug companies be tried for genocide? I think so, at least symbolically.
I have been extremely concerned about this aspect of patented drug prices for the past 20 yrs. or so. But when I discussed among both educated lay people & physicians, they would come up with the stock & universal responses, "Without such profits how can they come up with novel lifesaving drugs to benefit humanity?" They don't see that drug companies price their products something like very many-fold more the actual cost of making the drug. If for instance Aspirin is priced at $10/325 mg tablet, that would be seen as outrageous. Many newer fancy drugs are priced that outrageously.
For example the lifesaving 3-drug cocktail for AIDS was patented in 1996. Its price is still over $10K/yr./patient, far beyond the affordability of 95+% of afflicted patients. About 34 million patients died of AIDS, creating some 11 million AIDS orphans mostly in Africa. An estimated 10 million preventable deaths occurred in Africa; now they procure it for <$100. If they sold at this price to Africa & other Third World back in 1996 or '97, almost half of that 34 million deaths could have been prevented.
The drug companies must have known this. They didn't care. Should the senior executives of the respective drug companies be tried for genocide? I think so, at least symbolically.
15
Despicable. These executives should be sent to prison and not the country club ones.
5
Well drug company executives will it be nationalization or jail?
2
Neither.
It's America you are talking about .
The Land of the Free Reign, for those with most to profit and Gain.
It's America you are talking about .
The Land of the Free Reign, for those with most to profit and Gain.
2
While Republicans have enough seats to block legislation, neither. Maybe there will be televised hearings at which senators scold executives before the execs take the Republicans to lunch.
1
One hand washes the other. Congress and potentially Clinton will work hand in hand with the drug companies to ensure maximum profits, out of which they receive contributions. We should all think before we vote, and avoid the candidates who take large corporate contributions, whether they come from health care, the oil industry, or even unions.
12
That leaves about 10 Politicians in the country available for election.
5
Who raises a child hoping they'll become a pharmaceutical company executive?
7
Hedge Fund Manager, Tax Haven Lawyer, Bank CEO, Fund Manager, Republican ?
I could go on....
I could go on....
3
bottomline -- Nothing will happen until Congress steps up to the plate. Everything else is fingerpointing that goes nowhere.
5
But Congress smashed all the Plates!
Nothing to step on but the shards of your shattered hopes and expectation.
Nothing to step on but the shards of your shattered hopes and expectation.
4
We should just amend the Constitution to read "We the lobbyists ..." because that is what controls our government now.
11
It's quite a hatefest, and too bad that NYT is among the cheerleaders. Average new drug is on the market for 12 years before the patent expires, after which the price for a popular prescription medicine that went generic goes so low that Indian pharmcos commit fraud on quality, etc. just to avoid going bust selling it. The question is: can we as a society live with the new medicine being very expensive for 12 years, and the cheapest in the developed world after this (generics are much costlier in Europe and Canada than stateside) - or we'd rather destroy the industry that brought us the large portion of 15-year average lifetime extension in 40 years? Do we really want all the brightest students of today to work in corporate finance - or we are willing to pay them to work in the labs developing medical breakthroughs? And no, NIH doesn't develop drugs, researchers there create science foundations upon which the development process could occur if you invest enough into it. And no, investors are not going to put money into the projects with 1% likelyhood of success if you promise them 5% or even 20% returns in case of success - they will be much better off buying lottery tickets...
Healthcare costs in the country are outrageous - but drug expenses represent only 10% of them, and save much greater amounts by helping people live longer, avoid disability, and reduce the number of surgeries and hospital stays. Pharma is easier target than your RN neighbor, but not a fairer one.
Healthcare costs in the country are outrageous - but drug expenses represent only 10% of them, and save much greater amounts by helping people live longer, avoid disability, and reduce the number of surgeries and hospital stays. Pharma is easier target than your RN neighbor, but not a fairer one.
4
It is specious to credit pharmacology for the increased lifespan. It may be partially responsible. If you work in the industry I suppose you would actually choose to believe that drugs are doing much more good than harm.
6
Generics are cheaper in Australia the still on patent prescription drugs, which are cheap anyway due to them being subsidized by our Government as well as their refusal to pay the crazy prices they get away with in the U.S.
3
"Generics are much costlier in Europe and Canada than stateside." No they're not. It is not that uncommon for a generic drug to be literally hundreds of times more expensive in the United States than in Europe or Canada.
The biggest price increases have been for existing drugs no longer patented. Because it has become financially wiser to raise prices on old medications than to develop new ones, R&D is one of the victims of these price increases.
R&D budgets are being cut because old medications have become so profitable. Valeant has been the biggest proponent of such a business model. They cut R&D to only 3% of their budget and halted promising research because they found out that they could get away with such drastic increases for older drugs.
The biggest price increases have been for existing drugs no longer patented. Because it has become financially wiser to raise prices on old medications than to develop new ones, R&D is one of the victims of these price increases.
R&D budgets are being cut because old medications have become so profitable. Valeant has been the biggest proponent of such a business model. They cut R&D to only 3% of their budget and halted promising research because they found out that they could get away with such drastic increases for older drugs.
5
the drug companies are hedging against a Democratic Presidential win,particularly a Bernie Sanders win. hilliary clinton could still get knocked out of the race by an FBI investigation A Democratic win might bring price controls. that is what it is all about.
4
All the suggestions for "buy from Canada", "let Medicare negotiate", "pay the VA price and no more", etc. are well-intentioned but not only impractical, they wouldn't work even if implemented. There are no simple nor perfect solutions. But progress in the right direction could occur if new rules were implemented that enabled value-based pricing tied to the particular indication for which a drug is being prescribed. Many other developed nations take a similar approach now while dealing with most of the same pharmaceutical companies we have here in the US. Some current but antiquated rules would need to be scrapped or revised (e.g. Medicaid "best price") since they impede value-based pricing.
Ultimately, if we are ever to get health costs (not just drugs) under control, then every entity that makes a dollar of revenue from health care services is going to have to agree to take less than that dollar. That's a tall but necessary order. Who wants to volunteer to make less money?
Ultimately, if we are ever to get health costs (not just drugs) under control, then every entity that makes a dollar of revenue from health care services is going to have to agree to take less than that dollar. That's a tall but necessary order. Who wants to volunteer to make less money?
3
The same companies that operate and sell their product in Australia seem to make good money even when they have to pay minimum wage and benefits twice as high than in the U.S as in the case of McDonald's which in 2014 made 40% profit whilst the U.S Company made 3%.
It's called working better, smarter and fairer.
Seems to work.
It's called working better, smarter and fairer.
Seems to work.
2
single payer can't come soon enough. we're tired of being bent over by the drug and insurance companies.
19
A few years ago Sanofi reduced the price of Zaltrap, a drug for colon cancer, by 50% because doctors at Sloan Kettering balked at the price and refused to use it. If Sanofi could afford to slash the price to that extent and still profit, the original price was clearly outlandish. This is robbery pure and simple - we need to stop treating it like it's business as usual.
15
The lack of regulation in the U.S. allows the pharmaceutical companies to subsidize the countries that do put their citizens first at our expense. It's time to stop this soaking of the American people.
5
"... the pharmaceutical companies to subsidize the countries that do put their citizens first at our expense"
No no no! They still make good money in Europe, Australia and everywhere else ...it's just in America they are so unregulated and allowed such free reign...they go NUTS!
You guys let them do whatever they want with prices to the point of lunacy.
They do it because they can.
Do not think for a moment they are recovering losses from the other western Marketrs from the U.S ...they are just making a Mass Killing.
No no no! They still make good money in Europe, Australia and everywhere else ...it's just in America they are so unregulated and allowed such free reign...they go NUTS!
You guys let them do whatever they want with prices to the point of lunacy.
They do it because they can.
Do not think for a moment they are recovering losses from the other western Marketrs from the U.S ...they are just making a Mass Killing.
5
SIngle payer. Allow the Medicare-for-all program to negotiate with these slimeballs.
22
It all boils down to our govt did not cap drug prices so these drug companies are going to rip off the American people until we get sick of it and do something. Wake up America you are being scammed and ripped off. If Obama would have included that in the ACA it would have been a whole lot better.
4
The drug companies wrote the fool thing and all the Democrats who voted for it never read. This is what you get when you have a President who only knew politics and politicking. And a virulently partisan system that serves the public not at all.
4
Very correct. It was in the original ACA but pushed out in the negotiations because of the overwhelming $$$$ of Pharma's influence on your ALLEGED REPRESENTATIVES. Folks, it is not the docs-it is the feeling that if "my insurance pays it" YOU are not paying it. WRONG!!! You pay the copays (which ususally is the drug cost) and your insurance premiums (which is the pocketed profit). Wake up!! Please!! Introduce the competition inherent in TRUE DEMOCRACY and Capitalism and the market will make drug prices reasonable----maybe. DO you know how your representative voted??? No TV. No social networks. FACTS. FACTS. Evidence based opinion. Please???
5
Besides, getting the United States involved in WW-I, President Woodrow Wilson gave us the Revenue Act of 1913 (income taxes), the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (the backstop for our banking system) and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 which essentially stripped Americans of their right to self-medicate, avoid doctors and to die in peace.
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
— Thomas Jefferson
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
— Thomas Jefferson
3
Drug cos spend about 3 times as much on marketing and administration as on R & D. There are the odious ads flooding TV, newspapers etc., The purpose of this marketing is so that patients often wind up asking for medicines and treatments that they don’t need or that are far more expensive than alternatives.
There is also more direct influence on physicians. First of all there are the pushers, aka drug reps, who infest their offices. There was a good article about them in The Atlantic published 10 years ago http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
Then there are various payments to physicians both direct and indirect. Every few years we read of drug companies actually paying physicians for prescribing their drugs which is illegal. The doctors are punished, the companies get a light slap on the wrist, and all goes on as before. Usually of course, they are more circumspect.
Recently, one of my doctors remarked that whenever he travels to NY for any reason, a drug company picks up the tab.
In addition the material presented at the various lectures given by physicians is usually misleading, to say the least. A great article was published in the Times Magazine in 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
In it one of the doctors that gave the lectires explained how the system works and, I believe, still works.
Physicians are invited to fancy restaurants, given a free meal, and listen to propaganda,
There is also more direct influence on physicians. First of all there are the pushers, aka drug reps, who infest their offices. There was a good article about them in The Atlantic published 10 years ago http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/the-drug-pushers/4714/
Then there are various payments to physicians both direct and indirect. Every few years we read of drug companies actually paying physicians for prescribing their drugs which is illegal. The doctors are punished, the companies get a light slap on the wrist, and all goes on as before. Usually of course, they are more circumspect.
Recently, one of my doctors remarked that whenever he travels to NY for any reason, a drug company picks up the tab.
In addition the material presented at the various lectures given by physicians is usually misleading, to say the least. A great article was published in the Times Magazine in 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all
In it one of the doctors that gave the lectires explained how the system works and, I believe, still works.
Physicians are invited to fancy restaurants, given a free meal, and listen to propaganda,
11
A substantial portion of the reason for the price increases is that many patients are completely insulated from the cost differential between a brand and generic. Just check any of the many Rx apps and compare the eye popping difference in price between brand and generic for pretty much any med of any vintage (10x is common).
Big pharma is fundamentally soaking whoever is paying the brand Rx cost differential vs. generic-- that's you reading this, one way or another, through your medical premiums, or your employer, or your taxes; or most likely, all three.
Big pharma is fundamentally soaking whoever is paying the brand Rx cost differential vs. generic-- that's you reading this, one way or another, through your medical premiums, or your employer, or your taxes; or most likely, all three.
4
Just whom do you think controls the flow of the, 90% of our drugs that we use? Big PhRMA by controlling generics cause the prices for these to increase and supplies to be less causing consumers to use the much more expensive "original brand drugs" with much higher prices. People don't shop for as long as OOP [out of pocket] is lower on insurers PBM its a waste of time. So shop internationally where prices are much lower, and ask the insurers if they'll reimburse the difference!
Just wait until this summer when 40 million Medicare Part D folks hit the "donut hole", right before the National elections!
Just wait until this summer when 40 million Medicare Part D folks hit the "donut hole", right before the National elections!
1
In my experience pretty much every insurance plan mandates using generic versions when available. The problem is that the biggest increases have been with generic drugs.
Has this not been your experience?
Has this not been your experience?
1
The dirty secret is the pharmacy benefits managers are using increasing prices to fatten their profits. They are not reimbursing the increased costs to pharmacies. We do not a health care system,but profit centers for insurers and drug companies.
13
If you think the drug costs on brand name prescriptions are offensive, go research the increases in generic prices.
70/30 insulin three years ago was $21.00 a vial. Now? $135.00 if we can find a discount card.
Sulcralfate 1 gram #120, three years ago, about $12.00, now over $40.00.
This is where the uninsured are getting ripped off. They don't buy brand name drugs. They can't afford them, never could. Now the generics are getting out of reach.
Our Free and charitable clinics used to be able to set a formulary of medications we could afford to help patients with, and it would last 2-3 years. Now I have to look up every drug, every month, every time because of the changes in pricing, or we go over budget. Not to mention the valuable time taken away from my ability to see patients just to keep tabs on drug prices.
If the drug companies and health insurance companies don't cut it out, we are going to end up with Universal Medicare, and after what I have seen in the last few years, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Particularly in states to stubborn and too stupid to expand Medicaid.
70/30 insulin three years ago was $21.00 a vial. Now? $135.00 if we can find a discount card.
Sulcralfate 1 gram #120, three years ago, about $12.00, now over $40.00.
This is where the uninsured are getting ripped off. They don't buy brand name drugs. They can't afford them, never could. Now the generics are getting out of reach.
Our Free and charitable clinics used to be able to set a formulary of medications we could afford to help patients with, and it would last 2-3 years. Now I have to look up every drug, every month, every time because of the changes in pricing, or we go over budget. Not to mention the valuable time taken away from my ability to see patients just to keep tabs on drug prices.
If the drug companies and health insurance companies don't cut it out, we are going to end up with Universal Medicare, and after what I have seen in the last few years, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Particularly in states to stubborn and too stupid to expand Medicaid.
13
Maybe we should insist on paying only what they charge in Canada or Europe. Why are American consumers picking up the lion's share of R&D?
1
Big pharma might be the root of all evil. Certainly it is part of the problem and it is not just about price fixing. Drug companies make drugs, market them to doctors and the public thus increasing sale. Often times once a drug is concocted there is a diagnosis and many that are told they need the drug. Autism is one, attention deficit disorder another. If one reads the potential side effects of many of the drugs that are advertised in magazines, on TV and radio the potential side effects seem to outweigh the benefit of the drug and are often worse than the symptom they are trying to cure. Then there is 'off label' prescribing where the drug companies are recommending using drugs for other symptoms that they have not been approved of. Drug interactions are rampant and most doctors have no idea what these may be. The drug companies are gouging the public both monetarily and symbolically and should be more closely regulated. Perhaps they can come up with a drug to cure greed and prescribe it for themselves.
5
In my opinion .... Anyone who has worked with or for J&J will not be surprised by this news. It is a morally bankrupt company that puts profit ahead of all else. While it boasts about its Credo (or Crayh-doh as it is said with extra pretension at J&J), reality is that they last lived by these values during the Tylenol incident of the 1970's. Today's J&J is about selling off-label to kids, raising prices, replacing older workers with H1B or cheap younh workers in the name of "diversity" or "COEs", bullying suppliers, and putting profit before patients. Today's Credo is more like a politician's wedding ring. It makes for good PR during the day but is slipped off at night when out on the town.
4
This is a simple problem with a simple solution - Price controls.
3
I just had a need for 20 doxycycline hyclate tablets, to fight a minor infection. I was shocked at the MedicareRx copay of $35, doubly so when I found the full price was "only" $42.
So I checked around. The identical medication, in dosage, inactive ingredients -- indeed, by the same manufacturer (it's a generic) -- can be purchased online for 69 cents a pill -- if it's for your horse! Both are manufactured to the same quality standards, so why is the "human" version three times the price?
I asked. The vet supply house won't honor a prescription written by a doctor outside veterinary practice. Humbug.
So I checked around. The identical medication, in dosage, inactive ingredients -- indeed, by the same manufacturer (it's a generic) -- can be purchased online for 69 cents a pill -- if it's for your horse! Both are manufactured to the same quality standards, so why is the "human" version three times the price?
I asked. The vet supply house won't honor a prescription written by a doctor outside veterinary practice. Humbug.
6
The reason is horses, last I heard can't borrow money and they have no property to attach.
3
You are lucky. Doxy is the first line treatment for lyme disease. About 18 months ago my dog was suspected at first to have lyme (turned out he didn't). 20 pills cost me $120 from the vet and the price was the same from a peoples pharmacy because dozy was in demand and supply short. I guess supplies have increased.
2
The reality is that Drug companies are charging Americans more for prescription drugs because they can and our benevolent Congress has even protected them by forbidding the Administration to negotiate more favorable prices to help contain Medicare, Medicaid and VA costs.
The rest of the world meanwhile has very strict cost controls and drug prices are on average 40 percent less expensive than the USA.
In effect we are subsidizing the rest of the world because our Congress refuses to act on behalf of the American people and in the process are putting Medicare at risk, diluting the disposable income of the majority of Americans and contributing to our inability to compete globally
Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders have been vocal on this topic and I have heard nothing from Don the Con on this topic
The rest of the world meanwhile has very strict cost controls and drug prices are on average 40 percent less expensive than the USA.
In effect we are subsidizing the rest of the world because our Congress refuses to act on behalf of the American people and in the process are putting Medicare at risk, diluting the disposable income of the majority of Americans and contributing to our inability to compete globally
Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders have been vocal on this topic and I have heard nothing from Don the Con on this topic
5
Talk is cheap. The drug companies are rushing to a self evident bubble-bust. They are behaving as if the prices they are charging are real and the money that they are extracting by coercion is also real. It's just something we all understand, and which we all agree upon. By trickery and self delusion, unaware that they are subject to changes of belief and trust, they feel privileged and deserving. How long do they expect this to go on? It wouldn't surprise me if they had a time table. Joe Kennedy said: "Only a sucker holds out for top dollar"
2
Most bankruptcies in the US come from medical bills. Not so in any other wealthy nations. Oh and thanks to the W. admin and a "free market" GOP congress, the U.S. Government, by far the world's largest purchaser of pharma, cannot negotiate with Big Pharma on price. So who then, is the market *free* for?
19
Did you notice any negotiation in the ACA regarding drug prices. Big Pharma wrote the bill. But at least you understand the value of a free market.
2
The market is free for Big Pharma.
For their Free Reign that is.
For their Free Reign that is.
1
Michael F: the ACA could not have passed had it contained a clause to repeal the GOP prohibition on the Medicare authority from negotiating drug prices. Context! History!
1
The alternative is for the drug producers to become utilities with a state or federal board setting prices. The companies have to earn to invest, but in truth they charge what the market will bear. it used to be that companies focused on small molecules and common diseases. There were a lot of customers for the product, lowering the cost even while they made robust profits. Now companies are focusing on rarer diseases and genetic opportunities, using approaches based on monoclonal antibodies. These approaches I suspect do not have the development costs of screening libraries to a target or screening models of disease for an effect. The patent laws applicable and time for protection need to be looked at.
1
Ban pharma advertising. That will save them billions. And switch to single payer for all. OR let us go to Canada and buy our drugs.
9
Yes because monopolies always hold down prices. Use the market. Bargain based on price.
It's absolutely essential that we get a new Congress that will mandate the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate the price of drugs. Other federal bodies are free to do that. But when the Bush administration pushed through the Part D drug plan, they expressly forbade the CMMS to use bulk buying as a negotiating tool.
Irregularities involved in the passage of that bill included pressure on Medicare Chief Actuary Foster to withhold data on the true cost of the act. His boss, Thomas Scully was reprimanded by Congress when this came to light, but Scully had already left government for a position in big Pharma. Ditto Billy Tauzin, one-time Democrat of Louisiana who crossed the aisle and was rewarded with the chair of a powerful committee. Having whipped the bill thorough the House, Tauzin dashed off to a job with Big Pharma at a reported compensation of $2 million pa. Sec. HHS Tommy Thompson crossed the line between the executive branch and the legislative by going on the floor of the House to twist arms to secure votes for the passage of the bill. It passed just before 6 a.m., when the vote had been kept open for over six hours.
The sleaze of the GOP keeps on growing, so that this scandal is all but forgotten. And the costs of drugs keep rising. And they scream about Obamacare and hold 50+ votes to destroy in order to present another gift to big Pharma et al.
Irregularities involved in the passage of that bill included pressure on Medicare Chief Actuary Foster to withhold data on the true cost of the act. His boss, Thomas Scully was reprimanded by Congress when this came to light, but Scully had already left government for a position in big Pharma. Ditto Billy Tauzin, one-time Democrat of Louisiana who crossed the aisle and was rewarded with the chair of a powerful committee. Having whipped the bill thorough the House, Tauzin dashed off to a job with Big Pharma at a reported compensation of $2 million pa. Sec. HHS Tommy Thompson crossed the line between the executive branch and the legislative by going on the floor of the House to twist arms to secure votes for the passage of the bill. It passed just before 6 a.m., when the vote had been kept open for over six hours.
The sleaze of the GOP keeps on growing, so that this scandal is all but forgotten. And the costs of drugs keep rising. And they scream about Obamacare and hold 50+ votes to destroy in order to present another gift to big Pharma et al.
8
Pharma is not in business to cure disease, they are in business to make money. It's capitalism you know.
5
When was the last time criticism was sufficient to stop obscene corporate greed?
6
I'm not sure what folks are discussing, but I am sure the pricing activity, among other activities, are already restricted by existing laws. Anyone care to comment?
2
Why worry about prices, they deal drugs, you need them they have them, new drugs as needed.
People will get sick, and they can cure you, good business, immoral in a capitalist way, nothing new here.
People will get sick, and they can cure you, good business, immoral in a capitalist way, nothing new here.
3
Fortunately, this is an easy problem to fix if Congress has the gumption with Government regulation and Government negotiation of prices. Why are there negotiated price differences in the first place? This industry is not Sam's Club or Costco. Drug makers should be permitted a reasonable return, but they should not be able to sell drugs for cheaper in Canada than in the US. Several solutions are available:
1.) Reduce the timeframes for drug patents.
2.) Initiate a drug price gouging law with real teeth to punish the Valeants and the mainline providers who inflate prices.
3.) Require all product testing to be conducted by the US government regulatory agency with testing against common & cheap generics, so we don't end up with a new class of drugs that is not as good as 50-year old generics like we found with heart medicines. The company should have no control over testing.
4.) Regulate prices if necessary. Once a drug is developed, the marginal cost is limited to production, which is typically cheap. Allow for profits to recoup development costs with a reasonable return, but limit manipulation of supply to gouge consumers.
It's hard to understand why we continue to let one more big business dictate the way we will live (and die) when Congress can take action to protect us. Surely that is a primary use of government even for the far right.
1.) Reduce the timeframes for drug patents.
2.) Initiate a drug price gouging law with real teeth to punish the Valeants and the mainline providers who inflate prices.
3.) Require all product testing to be conducted by the US government regulatory agency with testing against common & cheap generics, so we don't end up with a new class of drugs that is not as good as 50-year old generics like we found with heart medicines. The company should have no control over testing.
4.) Regulate prices if necessary. Once a drug is developed, the marginal cost is limited to production, which is typically cheap. Allow for profits to recoup development costs with a reasonable return, but limit manipulation of supply to gouge consumers.
It's hard to understand why we continue to let one more big business dictate the way we will live (and die) when Congress can take action to protect us. Surely that is a primary use of government even for the far right.
6
1.Congress has no Gumption.
2. The Primary use of Government is to protect themselves and prepare their
future, not yours. ESPECIALLY the far right.
2. The Primary use of Government is to protect themselves and prepare their
future, not yours. ESPECIALLY the far right.
2
This country is the biggest user of legal drugs and of illegal drugs on the planet. If it just becomes too much, people will import 'illegally'. What gives? Cialis is $20 here a pill, $2 in the Dominican Republic. Are we all corralled together by an outrageous legal system to pay 10 times as much as others? With the highest incarceration rate of the world, we are accepting a factor 10? Is that it? Or what is it?
Will we really put the full force of the government, the Coast Guard, to DEA, the FDC, the FBI and CIA to prevent cheaper, but equal drugs to benefit the masses? Let's see and have history as a guide. A house of cards.
Will we really put the full force of the government, the Coast Guard, to DEA, the FDC, the FBI and CIA to prevent cheaper, but equal drugs to benefit the masses? Let's see and have history as a guide. A house of cards.
1
I continue to be consternated that the healthcare industry receives an exemption from existing regulations (i.e. laws). A number of the pricing actions mentioned in the articles are already prohibited. Why are existing laws not enforced? Who cares. Apparently no one.
Recall President Obama, prior to passing the most recent health insurance legislation, having a meeting with the following together, in private: 1) phamaceutial industry representatives; 2) health insurance representatives; and 3) healthcare provider representatives. Do we have anti-trust regulations or not?
Recall President Obama, prior to passing the most recent health insurance legislation, having a meeting with the following together, in private: 1) phamaceutial industry representatives; 2) health insurance representatives; and 3) healthcare provider representatives. Do we have anti-trust regulations or not?
2
We could get started on this problem by repealing the law that prohibits Medicare from negotiating what it pays for prescription drugs.
6
And then there are the insurance companies who stop covering drugs that they've covered in previous years. My point being it's not just newly marketed drugs which are subject to manipulation. And the insurance companies are not the U.S. consumers friend by any standard. They have a huge drive on to make you use generics - that's their way of keeping costs down. Given the huge pharmaceutical companies in India and China there's no way to tell where the generics are coming from.
2
Most of these drugs are patent protected, a benefit conferred by the government, In order to level the playing field, a monopoly drug seller must confront a monopoly buyer. That's why drugs are so much cheaper in Europe and other countries with national health insurance. In effect, American businesses and consumers subsidize people in places like Canada and the UK who pay far lower prices for the same drugs. The extent of the subsidy probably dwarfs all foreign aid disbursed by the US every year, and goes to wealthy, not poor, countries.
2
Perhaps I'm a dolt, but I believe the pricing activities described are the purview of other agencies. Is there an exemption for FDA-approved products from other regulations/agencies? If so, why?
Prescription Drug Prices in Australia:
Unemployed, Disadvantaged or Seniors :$5
Everybody else: $32
Rebates given if a Families Drug Bill exceeds $1500 a year.
Public Health care is Free and Universal and includes all blood tests, most imaging (X-Rays, Scans) all doctors visits (except specialists where only 75% of fee is covered.
Private health care Top Gold Tier for Families for private Hospitals all surgeries all extras ,Dental , Optical, Mental, Nursing, Ambulance, Child Birth, Gym, Acupuncture, Physio etc etc MAXIMUM COST $ 320 per month
NO Deductibles.
No One in Australia has ever gone into debt for Medical Costs or bills and never will.
Unemployed, Disadvantaged or Seniors :$5
Everybody else: $32
Rebates given if a Families Drug Bill exceeds $1500 a year.
Public Health care is Free and Universal and includes all blood tests, most imaging (X-Rays, Scans) all doctors visits (except specialists where only 75% of fee is covered.
Private health care Top Gold Tier for Families for private Hospitals all surgeries all extras ,Dental , Optical, Mental, Nursing, Ambulance, Child Birth, Gym, Acupuncture, Physio etc etc MAXIMUM COST $ 320 per month
NO Deductibles.
No One in Australia has ever gone into debt for Medical Costs or bills and never will.
14
Oh but i thought the ACA would take care of that as well!
1
Good article! Until the drug companies prices are more controlled by the government (are you listening Hilary) it in up to doctors and patients to be more intelligent and prescribe and ask about generics rather than brand name drugs and to shop at pharmacies that offer lower prices. Some drugs that are brand name combine two drugs in one pill when two generics will do. Some generics are getting more expensive so another generic may serve the same purpose. So money can be saved by pill splitting. Some new brand name drugs are little different and work the same as a previous pill that is now generic or over the counter (otc). Some of these drugs which were made otc are more expensive than the prescription drugs that replaced them to the patient who has insurance but are a better deal to a patient without insurance. And so on and so one. My congressman receives big donations from drug interests and runs unopposed so why even write to him about this.
2
"The burden of drug pricing often falls most heavily on the uninsured, who must pay list price."
Wasn't the ACA supposed to reduce or eliminate the number of uninsured?
Wasn't the ACA supposed to reduce or eliminate the number of uninsured?
If congress is looking at this problem at all it is to find a way to ameliorate any negative impacts on the Big Pill Complex in America, and possibly word some acceptable apology to the the drug kingpins that will make it all OK again.
Corporations don't lie. People lie.
1
Can service for the public good (keeping people healthy and controlling disease) mix with the evil of greed? Direct advertising and insurance companies saying 'amen' to un-explained spikes in prices suggest the latter. Ought we not be regulating Big Pharma so to avoid becoming bankrupt?
3
Honestly, why would a bunch of passive investors and their citadel cloistered corporate officers and boards, even bother taking notice of the complaints? It is Supply, Demand, Price and constant adjustment via marginal analysis. This is capitalism. And corporate capitalism is largely amoral. It's about the debt to equity, dividends and qualifying for capital gains treatment.
It is a form of insurance fraud by insurers. The price the insurance company pays is a small percentage of the list price and the insured pays a copay and percentage of list cost that is a large portion of the real price.
11
You are mistaken.
1
The US market is fundamentally the only large market which does not directly control drug prices.
Ask yourself why this in the case of America.
And ask yourselves why the other large markets and other countries around the world that do, do it to help and protect their Citizens?
But yours Does not.
Will not.
Ask yourself why this in the case of America.
And ask yourselves why the other large markets and other countries around the world that do, do it to help and protect their Citizens?
But yours Does not.
Will not.
42
Drugs cost too much? It's a phenomenon almost unique to the USA.
I take just one prescription drug. It costs $230 at my local drug store. But I've never bought it there, because I travel a fair amount and take my prescription with me. In Germany the same drug costs me $32. In Thailand it costs $28 without a prescription. Actually, I can buy lots of it at the Bangkok airport, which seems set up precisely to sell various gold-plated drugs to annoyed Americans at 1/10 the price.
It gets even better (or worse depending on your outlook) in India. I just spent some time in Bangalore, where the exact same drug is everywhere sold without a prescription for $7. I brought home 10 of them, which paid for my trip.
Ironically, concern over this practice only occurs to me while I'm standing in a US customs line. Will the Feds arrest me when they find ten packages of blankety-blank in my suitcase? Everyone assures me, without evidence, that what i am doing is completely legal. It seems more likely to me that US Customs is somehow in the biz of fiercely protecting US drug prices, even if it means that we US citizens remain unable to afford the drugs we simply need to keep healthy.
I take just one prescription drug. It costs $230 at my local drug store. But I've never bought it there, because I travel a fair amount and take my prescription with me. In Germany the same drug costs me $32. In Thailand it costs $28 without a prescription. Actually, I can buy lots of it at the Bangkok airport, which seems set up precisely to sell various gold-plated drugs to annoyed Americans at 1/10 the price.
It gets even better (or worse depending on your outlook) in India. I just spent some time in Bangalore, where the exact same drug is everywhere sold without a prescription for $7. I brought home 10 of them, which paid for my trip.
Ironically, concern over this practice only occurs to me while I'm standing in a US customs line. Will the Feds arrest me when they find ten packages of blankety-blank in my suitcase? Everyone assures me, without evidence, that what i am doing is completely legal. It seems more likely to me that US Customs is somehow in the biz of fiercely protecting US drug prices, even if it means that we US citizens remain unable to afford the drugs we simply need to keep healthy.
32
Don't worry about it. The written policy is to ignore "violations" involving up to a three month supply. I get a med from Canada at a full price well below the US MedicareRx copay, shipped by mail, have done so for years. In reality: If you are seriously concerned, and it is more that 3 months worth, just repack them, so disguising their origin. No law requires you carry your US receipt for them with you.
Unless it's a couple hundred opiate doses: Nobody cares.
Unless it's a couple hundred opiate doses: Nobody cares.
3
Maybe Hillary can tell them to cut it out. Because, you know, she*s always out there fighting for us...
25
"And in that case, we soak the poor" (Adam J. Fein).
No, we are all soaked, sometimes right into poordom. I am now asked to pay $800 for what I previously (1.5 years ago) paid a $50 co-pay. Generally, my insurance with the AARP United/Medicare policy is equal to costs with United from my employer. If voters do not speak out to representatives, the prices will simply continue to rise. I buy my maintenance drug elsewhere where healthcare is patient, not profit driven and I pay without insurance subsidy.
No, we are all soaked, sometimes right into poordom. I am now asked to pay $800 for what I previously (1.5 years ago) paid a $50 co-pay. Generally, my insurance with the AARP United/Medicare policy is equal to costs with United from my employer. If voters do not speak out to representatives, the prices will simply continue to rise. I buy my maintenance drug elsewhere where healthcare is patient, not profit driven and I pay without insurance subsidy.
14
AARP lobbied in favor of ObamaCare. You may have thought it was because they were advancing the interests of the retired. It was actually the interests of their advertisers.
1
The US Government is the largest buyer of pharmaceuticals in the country.
Currently Medicare is barred by law from negotiating prices. Other governmental agencies do bargain via the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Even the VA receives substantial discounts from the Medicare Part D costs.
It is time for our legislators to finally act on behalf of the taxpayers and not just special interests and allow Medicare negotiate drug prices.
If your congressman disagrees get a new congressman. The entire house and 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection this Fall.
Currently Medicare is barred by law from negotiating prices. Other governmental agencies do bargain via the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Even the VA receives substantial discounts from the Medicare Part D costs.
It is time for our legislators to finally act on behalf of the taxpayers and not just special interests and allow Medicare negotiate drug prices.
If your congressman disagrees get a new congressman. The entire house and 1/3 of the Senate is up for reelection this Fall.
42
I'm sure that Hillary Clinton won't be influenced by her campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.
1
Laws must be passed so these private companies don't have a chance to play God..
No one has that right.
No one has that right.
51
Let's not forget that the cost of some of these drugs are essentially socialized to everyone in the health care system, when they are dispensed through ER visits by the uninsured. Their bill may include outrageous list prices for drugs, but the hospital is forced to write them off as uncollectable. The rest of us pay that bill, and the drug companies take more than their share due to the artificially high prices they claim.
19
The hospitals negotiate prices with the drug companies, unless you believe that they paid $80 for a non-prescription Tylenol. What they bill has nothing to do with what price the hospital negotiated with the drug company.
Obama told us that ObamaCare would reduce every family’s healthcare cost by $2500 because there would be no more uncompensated ER use.
Obama told us that ObamaCare would reduce every family’s healthcare cost by $2500 because there would be no more uncompensated ER use.
A good argument for a single payer system.
2
Maybe if they didn't spend billions in marketing drugs they could use those monies to lower the cost.
Only a matter of weeks ago came the report that seconal, a barbiturate formerly used as a sleeping pill but now apparently the drug of choice for assisted suicides, costs close to $1000 for a small bottle. This was a drug that was so cheap that one found it in many medicine cabinets. Now, did the synthesis suddenly become extremely difficult? Did the starting materials become rare? No. As far as I can tell, manufacturers can extort this amount of money from desperate people. If there is a less pernicious answer I am open to hearing it. The alternative, I suspect, is unalloyed greed. Not alloyed with any sense of social responsibility or interest in being a good corporate citizen. Of course, since many of the largest corporations rarely any longer have any "home" country to which anyone might feel a sense of belonging, why should they care? That's so archaic.
60
It bolls down to paying off the US Congress and the chief executive. It's really more like an Oriental Bazar than a government.
10
Seconal and analogs, in addition to being the drug of choice for physician assisted suicide, also used to be the drug of choice for executions. The anti-death penalty folks threatened the manufacturers (“Quit selling it unless you want to be known as the drug company that kills). There was never a lot of money to be made, since its primary usage was to kill people, so they all left the market.
Wishes of the anti-death penalty activists won out over the interests of the right-to-die activists.
Wishes of the anti-death penalty activists won out over the interests of the right-to-die activists.
I commend the NYT for this article that at least attempts to explain some of the nuances of discounts and rebates, which modify the effective impact of drug price increases at the wholesale level. I wish it also would have covered these two points. First is the fact that the US market is fundamentally the only large market which does not directly control drug prices. As a consequence, revenue from the US market subsidizes the lower costs in the UK, France, and smaller markets in developing countries, thereby giving them a free ride on drug R&D. The second is that about 80% of prescriptions in the US are filled with generic drugs, not patent protected drugs. The reality is that we are seeing a death spiral in pharma. It is a high risk game where higher and higher price increases within a smaller and smaller segment of the only significant "free market" left in the world is keeping the industry afloat. To all those who would ignore these realities and impose price controls, import drugs, or believe that the NIH can develop drugs, I hope you have a plan for when you need that next vaccine or cancer immunotherapy. What is needed i a rational plan to keep industry alive, not self serving sniping which will kill the golden goose.
9
When you -- and others -- say the US is "subsidizing" lower costs elsewhere, it suggests that, were other countries to stop controlling prices, prices in the US would come down. Do you believe this to be the case? I don't. I believe the pharmaceutical companies are attempting to maximize their profits in each and every market they're in, and that if other countries paid more, prices in the US would not reflect this. They wouldn't drop by so much as one thin dime.
10
Don't make the mistake of thinking that effective R&D is somehow contingent upon an ever-increasing budget. There simply isn't any evidence to support such a claim.
12
That's not exactly what he is saying. What he is saying, IMO, is that if the US imposes pricing comparable to Europe, innovation will slow.
1
It's time for the Federal Government (are you listening, Obama?) to initiate strict pricing controls over ALL drugs. An Executive Order would do it.
18
He's been paid off and not going to do anything except lecture other countries about how they should government themselves. And they see him as a one man comedy act. Too bad Ringling Bros has its quota of clowns already. He might have found honest work after this tour is over.
3
Are you listening, Activist Bill: A GOP-led Congress forbade the administration to negotiate prices for drugs under Medicare and Medicaid. Obama does not make law. Congress does.
2
The intent of ObamaCare was to make sure the Big Hospitals, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance got paid. Why would he renege on his promise that he would secure profits for them if they supported his re-election? He has his post-Presidential life with which to concern himself. Al Gore made $200 million, as did the Clinton's post Presidency. And until he gets Michelle elected to office, he has no official influence to sell, as Bill did. Obama is going to go back to work as an even higher paid community activist while we wait for Michelle.
Several simple proposals:
1. Ban ALL direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On TV, on the radio, in newspapers and magazines. Allow drug advertising only in professional medical journals. Just like every other country on the globe with the exception of New Zealand.
2. REQUIRE that all government entities purchasing or paying for prescription medicines negotiate with the drug manufacturers, and in the case of similarly effective drugs, pay only for the least expensive one.
3. Shorten or eliminate the patentability of any drug whose research is financed in whole or part by the Federal government.
4. Eliminate patent extensions on drugs, and patentability on different combinations of expiring patent drugs.
1. Ban ALL direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On TV, on the radio, in newspapers and magazines. Allow drug advertising only in professional medical journals. Just like every other country on the globe with the exception of New Zealand.
2. REQUIRE that all government entities purchasing or paying for prescription medicines negotiate with the drug manufacturers, and in the case of similarly effective drugs, pay only for the least expensive one.
3. Shorten or eliminate the patentability of any drug whose research is financed in whole or part by the Federal government.
4. Eliminate patent extensions on drugs, and patentability on different combinations of expiring patent drugs.
26
Great points which are a combination of common sense, fairness, equality and logic.
Not that any of those help in "today's " America.
Not that any of those help in "today's " America.
2
Well said peterhenry. I suggest adding two more: 1) A company marketing a "drug" must reveal its development expenses and what percentage of the development costs were borne by we the taxpayers through NIH (grants to researchers AND employees);and 2) Permit we the consumers to purchase any medications we need wherever we wish (Israel, Canada, Mexico, India, China,etc., etc..).
1
2. Eighty eight percent of drugs paid for by Medicaid and Medicare are purchased after negotiation with drug manufacturers. And the insurers and pharmacy managers generally have larger populations they are buying for than the government. So they have more leverage than Medicare or Medicaid.
1. Requires a Constitutional Amendment.
3. It is extraordinarily rare for any drug to get more than five years of exclusivity, since 15 of the 20 year patent life is consumed getting FDA approval. How much shorter than five years seems fair to you?
4. Agree.
5. Shorten the approval cost/time for generics. It takes an established drug manufacturer three to five years and $20 million to get approval from the FDA to sell a generic. That is how the recent generics shot up so much overnight. The venture capitalists want to make their money and sell out in three to five years while the getting is good.
6. When drugs are going off patent, in addition to the shenanigans in 4., the name brand drug companies bribe the generics not to enter the market place. The FDA and courts should put an end to such "settlements" that are contrary to public policy.
1. Requires a Constitutional Amendment.
3. It is extraordinarily rare for any drug to get more than five years of exclusivity, since 15 of the 20 year patent life is consumed getting FDA approval. How much shorter than five years seems fair to you?
4. Agree.
5. Shorten the approval cost/time for generics. It takes an established drug manufacturer three to five years and $20 million to get approval from the FDA to sell a generic. That is how the recent generics shot up so much overnight. The venture capitalists want to make their money and sell out in three to five years while the getting is good.
6. When drugs are going off patent, in addition to the shenanigans in 4., the name brand drug companies bribe the generics not to enter the market place. The FDA and courts should put an end to such "settlements" that are contrary to public policy.
"Drug Pushers Raise Prices"
-headline
TV ads for drugs: only in US and New Zealand (of developed countries)
Doctors prescribe drugs in proportion to money received from drug companies (recent NPR series, with data from Propublica's Dollars for Docs)
Sales reps in doctors' offices: oh no! Why am I sharing this waiting room with drug dealers
70% of Americans on prescription drugs! This is a costly epidemic.
Adverse effects not reported (maybe 1%), costs huge but unmonitored
etc
-headline
TV ads for drugs: only in US and New Zealand (of developed countries)
Doctors prescribe drugs in proportion to money received from drug companies (recent NPR series, with data from Propublica's Dollars for Docs)
Sales reps in doctors' offices: oh no! Why am I sharing this waiting room with drug dealers
70% of Americans on prescription drugs! This is a costly epidemic.
Adverse effects not reported (maybe 1%), costs huge but unmonitored
etc
9
Surely, Hillary Clinton is "fighting for us" against these drug companies and their exorbitant prices, right?
5
Yes. She "spoke out against" it—the way she spoke about banks and China and all sorts of things. I suppose that happened at dinner parties i wasn't invited to, because I never heard HER speaking out about these subjects.
8
So wait...are these the same drug companies who dump untold millions of dollars into Congressional and Senatorial races, and then own the winners?
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that these companies then expect lawmakers to let them advertise their high priced products on TV ("Tell your doctor you want a prescription for Constipatium, even with 'death' as one of the potential side effects") and gouge the public endlessly.
It seems that buying a politician or five (they are actually quite cheap, more streetwalkers than escorts) is an outstanding investment for any company when it comes to the return on their political 'contributions'.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that these companies then expect lawmakers to let them advertise their high priced products on TV ("Tell your doctor you want a prescription for Constipatium, even with 'death' as one of the potential side effects") and gouge the public endlessly.
It seems that buying a politician or five (they are actually quite cheap, more streetwalkers than escorts) is an outstanding investment for any company when it comes to the return on their political 'contributions'.
26
One might ponder and take comfort (or fear) in the simple historical axiom that no government lasts. Each one in turn rots from the inside. You can always tell when they start to go bad by the smell.
Greedy drug companies are part of a larger system based on greed in which insurance companies, hospital corporations, medical supply corporations, and doctors line their pockets while many people go broke from medical bills, and others simply die. American exceptionalism yet again!
49
Doctors do NOT line their pockets. (The others you mention do, and we fight against it.) The salaries of primary - care docs has been the same, adjusted for inflation, for decades.
2
Sure they do, especially the specialists, and 99% of us know it. Moreover, there are many countries where doctors see themselves first as "servants of the sick" and make wages that are reasonably middle-class or upper middle-class. In the USA, they are among the wealthiest 1%. And don't tell me different, I have friends & acquaintances who are doctors.
1
Your incredible ignorance is showing
It used to be illegal to advertise prescription drugs. That was repealed on the grounds of empowering patients with knowledge--and now the costs of that advertising is a huge part of the bill of the people who actually have to take such drugs. We need to repeal the advertising and instead allow manufacturers to post the information simply on their websites.
And require them to include in that every lab rat that sneezed while the drug was winding through the approval process--inform the public, really inform the public. That will have the added benefit of protecting the drug companies from damage claims because every patient will have chosen to take on the risks along with the benefits of each med.
And require them to include in that every lab rat that sneezed while the drug was winding through the approval process--inform the public, really inform the public. That will have the added benefit of protecting the drug companies from damage claims because every patient will have chosen to take on the risks along with the benefits of each med.
18
Ludicrous drug prices and relentless jacking up of those prices is a symptom of our hybrid socialist-capitalist healthcare system. Public criticism and shaming will not change it.
Our government massively subsidizes healthcare spending in many ways - Medicare, the tax deductability of employer-paid health benefits, requirements that people buy insurance, public hospitals etc. But we do little to cap prices. Medicare Part D actually PROHIBITS the largest buyer of drugs from negotiating with manufacturers!!! It's hybrid socialism/capitalism: we say to the healthcare industry, "We're going to force taxpayers to buy your product, but we're not going to dictate prices - you can charge anything you want. Have your cake and eat it too, Mike Pearson!"
And so they do. And doctors prescribe away regardless of cost - after all, the doctor isn't paying for the drugs. And aside from a copay (which drug companies subvert by paying kickbacks to patients), the patient isn't paying either, at least not directly. And insurance companies aren't paying either - they just pass on the costs to their insureds, and it shows up in health insurance premiums that are completely insane and unheard of anywhere else in the world.
You can call drug companies greedy and evil, but it's our own fault. We've elected lawmakers who have decided to subsidize drugs without regulating drug prices. The only brake on drug price increases is drug makers' embarrassment at how easy it is to fleece patients.
Our government massively subsidizes healthcare spending in many ways - Medicare, the tax deductability of employer-paid health benefits, requirements that people buy insurance, public hospitals etc. But we do little to cap prices. Medicare Part D actually PROHIBITS the largest buyer of drugs from negotiating with manufacturers!!! It's hybrid socialism/capitalism: we say to the healthcare industry, "We're going to force taxpayers to buy your product, but we're not going to dictate prices - you can charge anything you want. Have your cake and eat it too, Mike Pearson!"
And so they do. And doctors prescribe away regardless of cost - after all, the doctor isn't paying for the drugs. And aside from a copay (which drug companies subvert by paying kickbacks to patients), the patient isn't paying either, at least not directly. And insurance companies aren't paying either - they just pass on the costs to their insureds, and it shows up in health insurance premiums that are completely insane and unheard of anywhere else in the world.
You can call drug companies greedy and evil, but it's our own fault. We've elected lawmakers who have decided to subsidize drugs without regulating drug prices. The only brake on drug price increases is drug makers' embarrassment at how easy it is to fleece patients.
6
Why would they fear reprisal? They own the government.
9
The die is cast. Pharmaceutical corporations cannot be shamed into reduction of drug prices. Why? because their lobbyists work very hard in Washington and have a "lock" on the legislature. In addition, I've noticed a considerable increase in generics this year, and have now chosen to have scripts filled by my insurance company's "mail order" plan. I no longer pay the increased co-pays at CVS, nor do I pay any co-pays, saving a considerable amount each month. Actual retail without a plan for some of these drugs is obscene. Additionally, magazines are laden every other page with marketing of trending drugs. Ads are more than actual contents. I tear them out and shred in protest!
20
Don't forget the endless ads we have to suffer through if we watch television.
1
The poor are getting soaked. Simple.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
And none of our elected officials cares.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
And none of our elected officials cares.
5
Obama & Clinton have the back of Big Pharma!
Don't sweat the temporary publicity guys - all temporary noise.
Raise prices another 50% !
Don't sweat the temporary publicity guys - all temporary noise.
Raise prices another 50% !
4
This sentence tells it all: " Uninsured patients often must pay the list price of a drug, and an increasingly large share of insured customers are being asked to pay a percentage of the list price." Could there be collusion between the drug manufacturers and insurance companies working for employers to shift the entire cost of medicine to the employee? If the medicine net cost is $10, with a list price of $100, and the employee or insured pays 20% of list or $20 for a $10 medication. . .highly profitable. Healthcare must be regulated like a public utility!
11
The insurers are limited to 20% of premium cost for overhead and profit. They could make you pay more for your drugs, but if that meant they would spend less than 80% on services, they'd have to give back the excess profit. And it would be a counterintuitive decision, because, in general, $1 spent on drugs saves $5 on other medical costs; raising your co-pay would discourage using prescribed drugs, which would increase other costs more than the savings.
There is another catch to the assertion that the uninsured are paying the list prices. The drug companies have their reasons for maintaining high list prices. But they do a lot of couponing for folks with high co-pays and self-pays.
[It's like buying a house or auto in a depressed market. The builder or auto dealer will give you extras and rebates, excess pricing on your trade in, but hate to reduce the official sale price.]
There is another catch to the assertion that the uninsured are paying the list prices. The drug companies have their reasons for maintaining high list prices. But they do a lot of couponing for folks with high co-pays and self-pays.
[It's like buying a house or auto in a depressed market. The builder or auto dealer will give you extras and rebates, excess pricing on your trade in, but hate to reduce the official sale price.]
I think the big drug price increases are a political tool to wear down resistance to importing foreign made drugs, then once the barriers are down the drug makers will move out of the country. They already have tried through moving headquarters offshore.
1
The drugs purchased in the US are not exclusively drugs manufactured in the US. When a US drug company sells a drug in the US, it charges a higher price than in Canada because Canada imposes price controls. The same thing is true of Swiss or German drugs, Americans pay more.
It has nothing to do with imported v. domestic.
It has nothing to do with imported v. domestic.
1
This is caused by the absence of anti-trust action by the Obama administration, which is the same as actively pursuing a policy of supporting pharmaceutical company shareholder enrichment on the backs of Americans who can barely afford their Obamacare premiums already. We don't need any new laws, we just need the old ones enforced. The justice department could break up the pharm manufacturers, including the makers of generics that have undergone a wave of mergers that should have been blocked during his administration. By limiting drug makers in the market and keeping out foreign competitors, these 1% shareholders are making off like the robber barons they are. Daily I have to change medications that work for my patients to deal with the latest price spike. It is bad for care and adds to the inefficiencies brought about by the corporate exploitation of medicine.
12
Foreign drug suppliers charge higher prices in the US than they do in other countries just like American manufacturers. There are no foreign competition being excluded. A drug company sells a drug in Canada for price A and for a higher price in the US. There is no competition possible for a patented drug, except with another drug for the same condition which may or may not have equivalent effectiveness.
There is no anti trust issue, the FDA intentionally delays issuance of generic approvals because it is inefficient and in bed with the drug company cronies.
There is no anti trust issue, the FDA intentionally delays issuance of generic approvals because it is inefficient and in bed with the drug company cronies.
Just like Many other things wrong in this country, nothing will be done. Even if everyone knows something is bad, we have no power to change anything, since all power resides in the hands of the few. We are merely the "help" and thereby here solely to support those that make the rules and money.
Nobody likes it, but the people are simply beaten when it comes to our needs vs their power/money.
Nobody likes it, but the people are simply beaten when it comes to our needs vs their power/money.
15
And it was the Republicans who forbade Medicare to bargain prices with the drug companies, when Medicare Part D was passed.
34
Joseph - The believer in the great big lie! One party is good while one is bad. When there are only Democrats left everything will be so much better. Democrats don't accept money from companies. They don't need money to run their campaigns. They don't want to leave politics as millionaires. They don't have their hands out. Right!
They are both the same and are in it for their own good and not for your good. Why do you think both parties hate Bernie and Donald?
They are both the same and are in it for their own good and not for your good. Why do you think both parties hate Bernie and Donald?
1
And yet, Medicare part D is the only federal welfare program that has ever in the history of the Union come in at a lower cost than CBO estimated.
And it was the Democrats who deliberately left out all drug price controls from the ACA. Are you beginning to understand now.
Perhaps if we did away with the law preventing the Federal Government to negotiate bulk drug purchases on behalf of the taxpayers people would not be going to Canada or mail ordering from who knows where to save money. As it is, politicians bought and paid for by Big Pharma protect Big Pharma's pricing power.
18
One year ago my 87 year old mother let herself die, refusing ONE medication for her leukemia that was to cost her, by her own calculations, over $935,000 for the next ten years of her life. I saw that calculation, done in her own hand, that I found in her effects, That sum, which was to cost her her life's savings and estate, was a major consideration when she drafted her end of life directions.
Thank you, medical profession,for you harmful and life threatening practices and inhumane ethics. I hold you responsible for her untimely death.
Thank you, medical profession,for you harmful and life threatening practices and inhumane ethics. I hold you responsible for her untimely death.
61
87 is not exactly untimely. God bless your mother for her wisdom and her care for her children.
2
Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for its recipients. Monopoly vs. monopoly.
27
Legal theft, pure and simple.
16
I believe I read somewhere that the average pharmacy mark up on drugs is about 50%?
I don't believe it's that high. Maybe 10% is about the highest.
1
Are you joking? 10% markup is not true, not even close. Read the November 2016 Consume Reports. The same drug in US pharmacies like Costco & Walmart is marked up 200-300% by CVS and Walgreens.
1
10% IS true and correct. The big bucks are made by the drug manufacturers.
The third party system created this mess. The insured consumer could care less what the real cost of their meds are. Drug companies wouldn't get away with this extortion if people had to pay out of pocket.
3
The article should be titled "Drug Pushers Raise Prices".
You mention " expensive new cholesterol-lowering drugs, called PCSK9 inhibitors". Yes, they lower LDL, but they have not been proven to lower heart disease or stroke.
In fact statin drugs (1/4 of Americans over 40 now on them) have not been proven to lower cardiovascular disease when used for primary prevention. Okay, they're generic, so cost per dose is low, and like cheap hamburgers, billions have been sold. As generics, they can't be sued for bad drug design nor for failure to stay current on warnings.
The huge, hidden cost of drugs is the adverse effects that they cause. 25% of drugs are given to combat the effect of drugs already taken.
But sometimes adverse effects are permanent. How often? Who knows, since doctors aren't required to report them to the FDA, and only 1% are reported.
At my small health club, I know 3 people who are living their previously-healthy lives like this: statinvictims.weebly.com.
True nightmare, and very, very costly to our healthcare system!
You mention " expensive new cholesterol-lowering drugs, called PCSK9 inhibitors". Yes, they lower LDL, but they have not been proven to lower heart disease or stroke.
In fact statin drugs (1/4 of Americans over 40 now on them) have not been proven to lower cardiovascular disease when used for primary prevention. Okay, they're generic, so cost per dose is low, and like cheap hamburgers, billions have been sold. As generics, they can't be sued for bad drug design nor for failure to stay current on warnings.
The huge, hidden cost of drugs is the adverse effects that they cause. 25% of drugs are given to combat the effect of drugs already taken.
But sometimes adverse effects are permanent. How often? Who knows, since doctors aren't required to report them to the FDA, and only 1% are reported.
At my small health club, I know 3 people who are living their previously-healthy lives like this: statinvictims.weebly.com.
True nightmare, and very, very costly to our healthcare system!
6
While I realize there are some medications you have to take, i.e. cancer drugs, etc., maybe if people would make some lifestyle changes, they wouldn't need all these cholesterol lowering drugs, diabetes drugs and others.
Mark Twain: "We have the best government money can buy."
Will Rogers: "America has the best politicians money can buy."
Big Pharma would have us believe that exorbitant prices are a prerequisite for the discovery of wonder drugs. They fail to explain why they sell drugs all over the world for prices far below American prices.
Logic dictates that one of the following is true:
1). Americans are paying fair prices and thereby subsidizing the rest of the planet.
or 2). Americans are getting hosed.
You choose.
American politicians refuse to act to control drug prices because:
1). Americans are paying fair prices.
or 2). Politicians are bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
You choose. Hint: consult Mark Twain or Will Rogers.
Will Rogers: "America has the best politicians money can buy."
Big Pharma would have us believe that exorbitant prices are a prerequisite for the discovery of wonder drugs. They fail to explain why they sell drugs all over the world for prices far below American prices.
Logic dictates that one of the following is true:
1). Americans are paying fair prices and thereby subsidizing the rest of the planet.
or 2). Americans are getting hosed.
You choose.
American politicians refuse to act to control drug prices because:
1). Americans are paying fair prices.
or 2). Politicians are bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
You choose. Hint: consult Mark Twain or Will Rogers.
8
There is no cost restriction on any of the pharmacy companies except by competition now in the United States. In every other country there are government price controls on these medications. In fact, Medicare can not negotiate any prices on any medications.
So what do you expect? The prices are still going to keep going up ...there's no end in sight.
So what do you expect? The prices are still going to keep going up ...there's no end in sight.
5
The reference to an "increasingly large share of patients being asked to pay a percentage of the list price" may be true but the link in support of that statement has nothing do do with drug prices: it is a statement about all medical expenses.
Secondly, it would really be better to to use actual prices rather than list prices throughout. The most recent actual price increase is a fraction of e headline number.
Secondly, it would really be better to to use actual prices rather than list prices throughout. The most recent actual price increase is a fraction of e headline number.
As long as insurance and drug companies can continue to operate and function without any oversight from the Government, their sense of fair play and profit will continue. The American public is truly over a barrel and a very large pill box.
4
This should be no surprise to anyone. A monopoly seeks to maximize profits and GWB and Congress gave big pharma an unregulated monopoly with Medicare Part D. The only surprise is that prices didn't rise to their monopoly level earlier.
5
Like it or this is simply capitalism. You raise your prices as long as sales continue. If sales drop, you lower your prices accordingly. The Pharma companies are not setting the prices--the market's supply and demand is.
This is the same concept as gasoline prices or sweat sock pricing. If you raise your price and sales are not reduced, you were undercharging and should continue to raise prices until you reach that ceiling. Otherwise, the business becomes government controlled, and the private sector will no longer spend $ on research and development. No new drugs will be developed.
It is our system of choice folks. If we are not using tax dollars to fund R&D, we are giving production, pricing and distribution rights to the private sector.
This is the same concept as gasoline prices or sweat sock pricing. If you raise your price and sales are not reduced, you were undercharging and should continue to raise prices until you reach that ceiling. Otherwise, the business becomes government controlled, and the private sector will no longer spend $ on research and development. No new drugs will be developed.
It is our system of choice folks. If we are not using tax dollars to fund R&D, we are giving production, pricing and distribution rights to the private sector.
1
Problem is gas and sweat socks are commodities, which would be equivalent to an off-patent drug with generic competition. A better comparison might be to pricing a Tesla where the product initially was unique. Again there is a difference though: you don't have to buy a Tesla while in rare cases only a single drug may be life saving. IN that case, it is your money or your life.
4
Broadcast television has become a complete captive to drug advertising. There is not a single evening news show that does not subsist entirely on it and is spreading to almost all hours and all channels, even the ones that used to sell Vegamatics. Many of these drugs treat conditions so rare that the only way marketing could be worthwhile was if the markup was astronomical. Most of these commercials are also heavy on the CGI and expensive to produce. Of all their expenses, ironically, Congress ranks among the lowest.
The only conclusion is these companies have more money than they know what to do with, which is still not enough. Open up the borders to the importation of drugs.
The only conclusion is these companies have more money than they know what to do with, which is still not enough. Open up the borders to the importation of drugs.
7
The answer is simple: Strict patent laws allow the drug companies
to engage in monopoly pricing. They are like an airline that serves only one airport, so it has no competition that will force it to set a market price.
This is especially troubling, because a traveler could switch to another mode of transportation. But if you need a specific drug for diabetes, heart disease, or
cancer you have no other choice.
The Department of Justice should institute an anti-trust suit against the drug companies and the Congress should hold hearings on weakening the patent laws.
to engage in monopoly pricing. They are like an airline that serves only one airport, so it has no competition that will force it to set a market price.
This is especially troubling, because a traveler could switch to another mode of transportation. But if you need a specific drug for diabetes, heart disease, or
cancer you have no other choice.
The Department of Justice should institute an anti-trust suit against the drug companies and the Congress should hold hearings on weakening the patent laws.
19
"But if you need a specific drug for diabetes, heart disease, or
cancer you have no other choice.".....And what choice would you have if the drug had never been invented? Patents only last for 20 years and then they become public property. The FDA approval process usually takes about 8 years leaving 12 years left on the patent. If you think that inventing that new critical drug you need is easy, why don't you try it?
cancer you have no other choice.".....And what choice would you have if the drug had never been invented? Patents only last for 20 years and then they become public property. The FDA approval process usually takes about 8 years leaving 12 years left on the patent. If you think that inventing that new critical drug you need is easy, why don't you try it?
1
How about Bernie Sanders' idea: that a company that creates a new drug that benefits the public gets awarded a large prize that allows them a profit on their product and well covers all the costs of developing it--and immediately thereafter there is no patent and anybody could make it?
5
The patent doesn't run until the distribution starts. And then, by tweaking the formulation and buying off competitors a company can maintain a monopoly for far longer. Then you can pay off some physicians to falsify study results to pretend that your pill is of better quality and reliability than all the others and that's good for another twenty years. Then you can sell off your markets and brand-name to another company so that they can operate some more scams where journalists don't be able to point to your company or theirs to show a pattern of corruption or sharp practice.
2
Considering drug companies spend millions of dollars advertising and paying doctors to prescribe their drugs; it is no small wonder that drug prices keep rising. Then, through in the desire to make huge profits. Finally, to make up for regulated prices, outside the Us, they have to make the prices higher, in the US, to make up the shortfall. And, throw in companies which start making generics who push the prices up as much as the market can bear.
The Drug companies will say it is recovery costs fro research and government regulations (FDA). But, the truth is; greed.
The Drug companies will say it is recovery costs fro research and government regulations (FDA). But, the truth is; greed.
6
First, the government should mandate the use of generics over the objection of those in Medicare and Medicaid. second, the policy of the United States since the 60's has been to allow high prices in the US so the export of drugs could be subsidized. Canadians, the third World and Europeans pay less for the same drugs from the same manufacturer because the US consumer has built in over pricing to subsidize those drugs. It's part of our foreign policy. There is nothing irrational about a nation spending ALL of its disposable income on healthcare, but that is what it is coming to in the US if we allow the direct marketing of drugs to ignorant and fearful patients; the subsidies and direct payments to medical researchers who report on the effectiveness of drugs and the unlimited provision of care for what should be elective drugs like Viagara.
2
I was a practicing solo dermatologist for 40+years, and was always amazed at the increases in the prices for dermatologic therapies that I encountered over 4 decades.
From 1975 (when I started practice) I always tried to write for generics (there weren't that many in the old days) since I tried to keep costs down for the patients). Even in those days many dermatologic drugs were expensive.
By the time I retired in September 2015, my already minimal esteem for drug companies had vanished, and I was truly staggered by the enormous price increases in old drugs, and furious at the prices of new drugs.
They were never nice folks, but now they are whores and pigs!
From 1975 (when I started practice) I always tried to write for generics (there weren't that many in the old days) since I tried to keep costs down for the patients). Even in those days many dermatologic drugs were expensive.
By the time I retired in September 2015, my already minimal esteem for drug companies had vanished, and I was truly staggered by the enormous price increases in old drugs, and furious at the prices of new drugs.
They were never nice folks, but now they are whores and pigs!
24
And how much did you charge your patients?
Spitzer, give it a rest. He was prescribing the meds, not selling them.
4
Far less then in NYC or other big cities, mon Cher, far less! I found out that my charges were less than a local NP, and far less than several local docs in my field.
I had not raised my office charges in the last 6 years. I did not balance bill Medicare patients, I participated in most insurance plans, I did not charge interest on overdue accounts, and I didn't send people to collection agencies.
I tried to be a nice person as well as a really good doctor.
I had not raised my office charges in the last 6 years. I did not balance bill Medicare patients, I participated in most insurance plans, I did not charge interest on overdue accounts, and I didn't send people to collection agencies.
I tried to be a nice person as well as a really good doctor.
5
It's a love-hate relationship... I think it's absolutely fantastic that pharma has developed drugs that cure Hep C with such high probability. At the same time, I am revolted that they charge such an obscene amount, given both the negligible amount they (Gilead) spent acquiring the rights to Solvaldi, and the extremely small amount it costs to produce it.
I don't think the pharmaceutical companies are evil. Are sharks immoral? No. They are what they are. Pharma is doing exactly what the free enterprise system tells them they should do: Maximize profit. Whether or not this strategy causes individuals (or states) to bankrupt themselves isn't a concern of theirs.
I don't think the pharmaceutical companies are evil. Are sharks immoral? No. They are what they are. Pharma is doing exactly what the free enterprise system tells them they should do: Maximize profit. Whether or not this strategy causes individuals (or states) to bankrupt themselves isn't a concern of theirs.
2
They used to use the "need the money for research" but now we are seeing that the drug companies use the patent system and government protection to pull "give me your money or your life" blackmail of the American public. And we ain't seen nuttin' yet. Part D medicare with its prohibition on Americans buying drugs abroad, combined with the TPTP will give the drug companies an open road to riches. Oh right, this is an election year.
4
My doctor has been a generic is good fellow for years. Now, even his well founded knowledge that the old stuff usually works as good or better than the new is in jeopardy with old drugs that have been here for decades seeing their prices jump to near-brand name levels.
I'm not for government intervention in all things, but for something as vital as health and future health, which are affected when patients can't afford their meds (yes, there are a lot out there) price increases should be like those requested by Utilities such as power and light, and only granted when a good business need showing production or other costs can justify an increase over what they have historically been costing in the past.
I'm not for government intervention in all things, but for something as vital as health and future health, which are affected when patients can't afford their meds (yes, there are a lot out there) price increases should be like those requested by Utilities such as power and light, and only granted when a good business need showing production or other costs can justify an increase over what they have historically been costing in the past.
6
My father in law has cancer. The other day my mother in law showed me a bottle of pills. I did not notice what type of medication it was but a 30 day supply cost over $15,000. Granted they don't pay the sticker price, but somebody is. That somebody is most likely us, the tax payers. This price gouging is criminal. I doubt very seriously that these companies are just recouping the costs associated with its development. This is one are where our Politicians can have an immediate impact. The only problem is both Political Parties are owned by Pharma.
5
Actually most likely this is not the case.
If you don't pay the sticker price, your insurance is not either. They will have negotiated a rate, probably something that is still too high ...
If you don't pay the sticker price, your insurance is not either. They will have negotiated a rate, probably something that is still too high ...
When you've bought Hillary and Congress as well as Big Pharma has, not to worry.
1
But it was the republicans that created this problem with their deregulation and passing of Medicare D. ... so at least blame the right person. Hillary is a republican anyway, but she had nothing to do with allowing the criminal abuse from Pharma.
3
I tried to treat a patient with pinworms this past week. The price of the preferred drug, vermox, was $800 per pill (only 1 pill is required for treatment)
This is getting out of control.
This is getting out of control.
13
It is ironic that the burden of high drug prices fall most heavily on the uninsured as the entry of insurance for drugs decades ago is what has caused most of the incredible increases in the price of those drugs. Take away insurance for prescriptions and prices would drop dramatically. When people are only required to pay a small copay for a particular medication they could care less what the actual price of that drug is and, as a consequence, drug companies can price their drugs however they wish.
2
For anyone who is thinking price controls, they don't work. We will still need the market to control prices and until we find the right way to do it, it will be painful and frustrating.
2
We currently have just the opposite of price controls. Instead we have price fixing by the manufacturers. Medicare is prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices with the manufacturers. If they could do so, we might have a true market that controls prices, rather than a "take it or leave it" price set by the drug manufacturers.
3
If anyone needed any proof at all that big American corporations own our government, this should dispel it. Congress is bought and paid for through campaign contributions, the FDA is lobbied to death by big Pharma and hobbled by shrinking budgets thanks to big Pharma contributions to Congress, the Patent Office, which extends virtually any patent for almost any minuscule reason, has clearly been bought by major corporations. This list goes on.
And Democrats (especially those in the establishment who benefit from gobbling at corporate America's trough) want to nominate Mrs. Clinton because they know she'll just keep doing the same old stuff. They particularly need to wake up and push hard for Mr. Sanders these next few weeks.
And Democrats (especially those in the establishment who benefit from gobbling at corporate America's trough) want to nominate Mrs. Clinton because they know she'll just keep doing the same old stuff. They particularly need to wake up and push hard for Mr. Sanders these next few weeks.
10
Pharmaceutical companies lobby heavily against any loosening of patent law that might allow generics to come onto the market sooner. They also fight hard against any law that might regulate pharmaceutical pricing. Their usual argument is that it will decrease the financial incentive of innovating new medication. The problem is, when the prices are so sky-high that the majority people can't afford it, it that innovation really doing much for anybody except the well-to-do?
6
Why can't wages go up like costs do?
4
This is what the oligarchy and their regulators and politicians want. (Monopoly pricing , intellectual property, etc. etc.)
10
I remember watching in horror as our Congress gave Big Pharma a Big Wet Kiss when they negotiated the law we now know as medicare part D. They made it illegal to negotiate lower prices. Illegal. Against the law. Like murder, rape or robbery. I couldn't understand how this could help seniors or America but they made sure this bit of nonsense found it's way into the final law. The Senator who shepherded this law through the Congress went on to represent the pharmaceutical industry as a top lobbyist a year later. Anyone who witnessed this giveaway could not be surprised by anything that Big Pharma or our government would allow to happen. This might not be rape or murder but I know a robbery when I see one.
50
The government isn't allowed to negotiate prices directly with pharma companies under Part D. However, companies administering the program can negotiate those prices, and they do.
That said, still the government - as in many other countries - should be able to negotiate, as it is the payer after all.
That said, still the government - as in many other countries - should be able to negotiate, as it is the payer after all.
2
Medicare Part D is the biggest windfall ever for the drug companies. Shame on congress for allowing the non negotiation of drug prices for such a captive group of customers.
8
When I read about increase in the price of drugs the first thing I think is that it's the pharmaceutical company increasing its CEOs salaries. The extra money does not go into pharmaceutical research. Having worked at a few big companies I can say that research on drugs is not high on the list of things they do. They research the market to figure out what to name the drug, how to price it, how to package it. The people who benefit from this are not patients, employees, or the average American. It's not about serving us. It's about making as much money as quickly as possible.
In fact, calling the ACA the Affordable Care Act is a joke because the only affordable part is the premium. When a simple broken bone costs $50K, involves fighting with the insurance company over copays, deductibles, allowed medications, etc., the problem is not just the pharmaceutical industry: it's the structure of our wealthcare industry. Drugs are a small part.
What's upsetting is that these increases are done without any regard to the actual benefits offered by the drug, particularly when they block it from becoming a generic. Patients are on the losing end of this. Pharmaceutical companies think they price responsibly but when you have people not filling prescriptions because they are too expensive even with the co-pay, you have to wonder. And if you need the medication the problem is even worse. No one should have to cut back on insulin to pay for housing, food, or other bills.
In fact, calling the ACA the Affordable Care Act is a joke because the only affordable part is the premium. When a simple broken bone costs $50K, involves fighting with the insurance company over copays, deductibles, allowed medications, etc., the problem is not just the pharmaceutical industry: it's the structure of our wealthcare industry. Drugs are a small part.
What's upsetting is that these increases are done without any regard to the actual benefits offered by the drug, particularly when they block it from becoming a generic. Patients are on the losing end of this. Pharmaceutical companies think they price responsibly but when you have people not filling prescriptions because they are too expensive even with the co-pay, you have to wonder. And if you need the medication the problem is even worse. No one should have to cut back on insulin to pay for housing, food, or other bills.
22
ONE OF THE BEST, most concise posts I have ever seen ! ! !
> "What's upsetting is that these increases are done without any regard to the actual benefits offered by the drug, particularly when they block it from becoming a generic
. . It's about making as much money as quickly as possible"
Like almost everything else, we have devolved into a highest-cost-possible mentality, driven by 3rd-Party payees, with the apparent benefits to the consumers, but the actual primary beneficiaries being the 1%, with the National-Debt always being a sponge, that soaks up a huge portion of the REAL costs, because it is largely invisible to the voters, who delusionally think that somehow they're getting something-for-nothing
We could *EASILY* fix most of these things, but collectively we cannot think outside-the-boxes, that the system/1% has constructed to keep-us-happy, while constantly inflating their bank accounts
EDUCATION= Remove education spending from General Revenues, make them operate on standalone taxes
K-12== if teachers want more $$/Benefits let them take their case to the public, instead of having to get more money at the expense of other govt-functions
Higher-Ed== Same thing about getting support from Taxpayers for tuition Subsidies
* Stop nonsense about discriminating against in-state students so that they can get more money from out-state, should be revenue-neutral
* Sell off NCAA to private Enterprise
* Eliminate 80% admin, diversity, and extra-baggage + 5star amenities
> "What's upsetting is that these increases are done without any regard to the actual benefits offered by the drug, particularly when they block it from becoming a generic
. . It's about making as much money as quickly as possible"
Like almost everything else, we have devolved into a highest-cost-possible mentality, driven by 3rd-Party payees, with the apparent benefits to the consumers, but the actual primary beneficiaries being the 1%, with the National-Debt always being a sponge, that soaks up a huge portion of the REAL costs, because it is largely invisible to the voters, who delusionally think that somehow they're getting something-for-nothing
We could *EASILY* fix most of these things, but collectively we cannot think outside-the-boxes, that the system/1% has constructed to keep-us-happy, while constantly inflating their bank accounts
EDUCATION= Remove education spending from General Revenues, make them operate on standalone taxes
K-12== if teachers want more $$/Benefits let them take their case to the public, instead of having to get more money at the expense of other govt-functions
Higher-Ed== Same thing about getting support from Taxpayers for tuition Subsidies
* Stop nonsense about discriminating against in-state students so that they can get more money from out-state, should be revenue-neutral
* Sell off NCAA to private Enterprise
* Eliminate 80% admin, diversity, and extra-baggage + 5star amenities
2
The US patient is subsidizing the pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. Because of pricing constraints elsewhere, big Pharma knows they can hold us over a barrel on prices because due to their unfettered direct-to-consumer marketing, the sheople are demanding more and more expensive new-new thing when an older drug is just as effective at pennies a dose compared to the latest blockbuster. Example: the same rabies vaccine in the US: $400.00 per dose (3 are needed) is about $75.00 for all three doses in India. Augmentin 7-day Rx is over a $100.00 here, but $7.50 in Saudi Arabia, and I won't even go in to the price of my asthma inhalers here vs. anywhere else.
By the way: most big pharma is not HQ'ed in the US...
By the way: most big pharma is not HQ'ed in the US...
4
You say that the US patient is subsidizing the [cost of] pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world. Do you truly believe that if pharma were able to charge far far more to those in other parts of the world, they'd charge less in the US? I'm pretty sure they'd charge exactly the same amount as before. What they charge here is dictated 100% by how much they can charge. They attempt to maximize their profits in every single market.
2
I recall reading that the main justification for soaring drug prices was for the drug companies to make money for research, knowing that after a 10-20 year patent ran out, the drug could then be manufactured generically and cheaper. I take a daily eye medication and a 60-day prescription costs $800. There is no generic yet. Thank goodness my insurance covers the bulk of it. I have no idea what a financially challenged patient would do. It's becoming a case of only those with money will be able to either stay healthy or fight any illness that falls upon them. I'm not against any company making a profit, but a line is crossed when "list prices for drugs increased more than 12 percent" and "uninsured patients often must pay the list price of a drug, and an increasingly large share of insured customers are being asked to pay a percentage of the list price." It is frightening not know if one day I or a member of my family could be on either side of that stated scenario.
5
A financially challenged patient would weep and probably not bother with the drug. Or they might go through the merry-go-round of asking the manufacturer to help them. The real issue here is that we're told we're a rich country but we refuse to do the things that would actually help people who are not rich (read that as middle class, working class, or downright poor), to receive the medical care they need. Our politicians seem to have a problem understanding the difference between want and need. We're told that we want Cadillac medical care when what most of us want is to be able to get the care we need without going bankrupt.
The truth is that Congress, whether controlled by the GOP or the Democrats, hasn't got enough backbone to stand up to pharmaceutical companies or any other corporations. Why? Because of how elections are paid for: by rich donors. Since most of us are not rich we have no voice.
The truth is that Congress, whether controlled by the GOP or the Democrats, hasn't got enough backbone to stand up to pharmaceutical companies or any other corporations. Why? Because of how elections are paid for: by rich donors. Since most of us are not rich we have no voice.
5
Good points - thank you! Also, Congress and politicians have a completely different and "Cadillac" insurance plan than the ordinary American citizen and they basically have no idea what the common citizen has to endure on a daily or monthly basis.
11
Many people--especially Republicans and others farther right--claim that they would never support "socialized medicine" (i.e. single payer health care) in the United States.
What people don't realize is that we already have "socialized medicine" for the drug companies. Our government forces Americans to purchase pharmaceuticals from U.S. firms, even though many domestic drugs are actually manufactured overseas (and the overseas price usually a fraction of the U.S. price). This an example of Big Government overriding the market to benefit a certain class--in this case Big Pharma.
"Socialized medicine for the rich, capitalist medicine for the rest of us."
What people don't realize is that we already have "socialized medicine" for the drug companies. Our government forces Americans to purchase pharmaceuticals from U.S. firms, even though many domestic drugs are actually manufactured overseas (and the overseas price usually a fraction of the U.S. price). This an example of Big Government overriding the market to benefit a certain class--in this case Big Pharma.
"Socialized medicine for the rich, capitalist medicine for the rest of us."
9
First thing congress should do is restrict drug companies from advertising in media (tv, radio, newspapers, etc).
Patients should not be telling their doctors what kinds of medications they should be taking or not taking. Believe doctors know a little bit more than john q public.
Second is that health insurance companies should not be "for profit". This one item has been the bane since the corporate structure was changed back in the 80's. With corporations constantly catering to their stockholders for higher and higher dividends to satisfy these same stockholders, the current health care system is in shambles. Granted it may not be totally to blame but it is a very large part.
And third, congress should allow medicare to negotiate drug pricing.
Why is this taking so long? I would like to see who in congress is benefitting from this because there is definitely collusion in here somewhere.
Patients should not be telling their doctors what kinds of medications they should be taking or not taking. Believe doctors know a little bit more than john q public.
Second is that health insurance companies should not be "for profit". This one item has been the bane since the corporate structure was changed back in the 80's. With corporations constantly catering to their stockholders for higher and higher dividends to satisfy these same stockholders, the current health care system is in shambles. Granted it may not be totally to blame but it is a very large part.
And third, congress should allow medicare to negotiate drug pricing.
Why is this taking so long? I would like to see who in congress is benefitting from this because there is definitely collusion in here somewhere.
6
Hasn't it been the case for many years that no one knows what anything really costs when it comes to health care? It amounts to nothing more than a sophisticated shell game in my view and the fact that our elected officials in
the Federal Government can't get to the bottom of it just makes me suspect they have something to gain in its perpetuation. It is this kind of chicanery that fuels the anger of those supporting Sanders and Trump. And rightly so.
the Federal Government can't get to the bottom of it just makes me suspect they have something to gain in its perpetuation. It is this kind of chicanery that fuels the anger of those supporting Sanders and Trump. And rightly so.
7
Nothing, not a single thing will be done about this. Congress and the leaders of the industry have re-written the rules whereby they both prey upon the public, thanks to Reagan era direct marketing to consumers, loosened regulation, and wildly expanded patent protections. The problem now is that they are so swollen with profits that they can buy off almost anyone and everyone. Our only hope is they push it so far that the other oligarchs will rebel. The problem the other oligarchs face is how to take on Big Pharma without shooting themselves in the wallet. Frankly I don't see an obvious solution.
8
Public scolding of pharmaceutical companies isn't enough to bring drug prices under control. Drug companies will not be shamed to make their prices reasonable.
This is a perfect opportunity for the government to govern! We need carefully crafted legislation to protect the consumer from this price gouging. Where is the legislation, Republicans? Democrats? Anyone?
This is a perfect opportunity for the government to govern! We need carefully crafted legislation to protect the consumer from this price gouging. Where is the legislation, Republicans? Democrats? Anyone?
7
Our government governing is an oxymoron!
2
We do not have a functioning government. Sweden does as does Britain and Denmark.
3
Actually I've been surprised at how cheap some of these drugs are--mainly generic of course. Blood pressure meds for $5 a month for example. Eyedrops, for pressure, again $5 a month. Just sayin.'
Your eye drops may have made you blind to reality or maybe some other drug is the culprit.
1
Drug Prices Keep Rising Despite Intense Criticism. This greed by the Drug Companies is a serious problem. People are losing faith in the private sector. it's a shame it is happening in America. This drug price system is irrational and illogical.
5
I just got ding'd on this for one of my scripts this month. According to the pharmacist, the original mfgr. abandoned making the drug, leaving no competition for generic production, so the sole remaining mfgr. now has an effective monopoly. Due to the sudden three-fold price increase, the drug is no longer included on my local pharmacy chain's list of drugs included in a $20/annual low-price drug plan, so I will have to switch to filling 90 day supplies through my insurer's PBM, or be restricted to 30 day scripts at a slightly higher cost. Thus my local pharmacy (a smaller chain) loses business.
Am I understanding correctly that generic drug manufacturers can have exclusive manufacturing rights? If so, doesn't that defeat the whole concept of "generic"?
As a society, we consider war profiteers to be unethical. In what way are drug manufacturers who are clearly profiteering (not simply profiting) from people with health issues any different?
Finally, when exactly does the capitalist system step in to increase competition and lower prices? Seems the opposite is happening in pharmaland. So much for free market forces.
Am I understanding correctly that generic drug manufacturers can have exclusive manufacturing rights? If so, doesn't that defeat the whole concept of "generic"?
As a society, we consider war profiteers to be unethical. In what way are drug manufacturers who are clearly profiteering (not simply profiting) from people with health issues any different?
Finally, when exactly does the capitalist system step in to increase competition and lower prices? Seems the opposite is happening in pharmaland. So much for free market forces.
9
more kabuki theater by congress. all they have to do is lift the drug re-importation ban so consumers can buy the same drugs from canada online. watch how fast drug prices fall.
... and I wouldn't give much credit to CVS, they're prices are quite high overall; and since they just bought Target's pharmacy business both have increased prices.
everyone with a smartphone or pc should download GoodRx and see just how much the price on drugs varies.
... and I wouldn't give much credit to CVS, they're prices are quite high overall; and since they just bought Target's pharmacy business both have increased prices.
everyone with a smartphone or pc should download GoodRx and see just how much the price on drugs varies.
9
Ignore all the vague nonsense about "variables" and "appropriate prices." The cost of medications has nothing to do with the expense of manufacturing them or any or any of the other quaint notions we have about the "forces of the marketplace." Simply put, they charge what they charge because they can. There are no rules, no magic enforcement fairy hovering above the fray waiting to put it right. Do you like small government? Welcome to the world of 19th century laissez faire capitalism.
21
I have multiple sclerosis, and the number of drugs available for to MS patients has increased in the past few years. I used an injectable medication daily for over ten years before problems with my skin at injection sites made me stop. I then tried several of the newer oral medications, but serious side effects of one forced me to leave it aside. Another had some promise, but my insurer would not cover the $17,000 per month cost.
After a couple of years, I thought about returning to my injectable, but in the interim, the price had more than tripled, and my insurer had changed their coverage policies for injectable medications for MS. Instead of being a core benefit with 100% coverage (no deductible-like insulin), these were deemed a regular pharmacy item for which I needed prior authorization and would pay a 40% co-pay or $400/month, whichever was greater. With the drug now costing $16,000 per month, we would be responsible for $6,400. There's no way we could afford this. Since I have insurance, patient assistance programs are not available,
When my MS progressed to the secondary progressive stage, for which there are no real pharmaceutical options available to me, I was actually relieved. My doctor works with me to manage problematic symptoms, and life goes on. Something needs to give with drug prices: if no one can buy them, who profits?
After a couple of years, I thought about returning to my injectable, but in the interim, the price had more than tripled, and my insurer had changed their coverage policies for injectable medications for MS. Instead of being a core benefit with 100% coverage (no deductible-like insulin), these were deemed a regular pharmacy item for which I needed prior authorization and would pay a 40% co-pay or $400/month, whichever was greater. With the drug now costing $16,000 per month, we would be responsible for $6,400. There's no way we could afford this. Since I have insurance, patient assistance programs are not available,
When my MS progressed to the secondary progressive stage, for which there are no real pharmaceutical options available to me, I was actually relieved. My doctor works with me to manage problematic symptoms, and life goes on. Something needs to give with drug prices: if no one can buy them, who profits?
21
Rescind the monopoly on the American pharmaceutical market that the GOP Congress gave away.
Americans should pay global prices. Period.
And if Big Pharma continues to soak the aged, infirm and vulnerable, drop their patent protection to 2 years. Make them pay for the national consumer research they currently get for free.
They duck and dodge trying to convince regulators and the public that they are not vicious predators, but look at their profits - record breaking, year after year after year.
Time to cut their dependence on am American monopoly. And yes, take away direct-to-consumer advertising, too. All of the things that Pharma promised they wouldn't do if it was legalized, they've done repeatedly.
Americans should pay global prices. Period.
And if Big Pharma continues to soak the aged, infirm and vulnerable, drop their patent protection to 2 years. Make them pay for the national consumer research they currently get for free.
They duck and dodge trying to convince regulators and the public that they are not vicious predators, but look at their profits - record breaking, year after year after year.
Time to cut their dependence on am American monopoly. And yes, take away direct-to-consumer advertising, too. All of the things that Pharma promised they wouldn't do if it was legalized, they've done repeatedly.
17
This is what the GOP fights for: the freedom to pay the highest prices in the world.
17
Let us not lose sight of one of many Congressional "inconvenient truths," namely that it is Congress which has steadfastly prohibited Medicare from engaging in competitive drug negotiations. We need not wonder why, suffice to say - Congress remains in the platinum-lined hip pocket of Big Pharma, their pathetic "hearings" notwithstanding. The fact that we still permit pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products on television is incomprehensible and disgraceful - that practice should be banned immediately. It is also a shameful truism that the uninsured pay by far the highest prices, not only for medications, but for hospitalizations as well, since they have no leverage to negotiate with providers, unlike Pharmacy Benefits Managers. We have only one recourse, ultimately, and that is to move as expeditiously as possible towards single payer, Medicare for all - with a number of requisite tweaks to Medicare, including competitive drug price negotiations, but also covering care for chronic, irreversible conditions, such as dementia, to include in-home caregiving and other support. In the long run, that will be more cost effective than repeated hospitalizations or institutional care.
28
If the drug companies were using their money for research into new drugs instead of paying all the money to executives and "directors" who serve on numerous company boards. Many CEOs draw millions that we all pay for.
3
Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton have been outspoken on the rising prices.
Wonder why?
Wonder why?
4
This is simply false.
3
Hopefully, when Hillary is elected, she will take them to the woodshed and tell them to 'knock it off', like she did with WallStreet and the banks.
In the alternative, maybe we can elect a new Congress who won't make it a crime to for Medicare to negotiate costs with pharmaceutical companies:
Medicare being their largest customer.
Want to take a ride on my unicorn?
In the alternative, maybe we can elect a new Congress who won't make it a crime to for Medicare to negotiate costs with pharmaceutical companies:
Medicare being their largest customer.
Want to take a ride on my unicorn?
8
it's worth noting that two of the drugs mentioned in this article, Invokana and Xarelto, are heavily advertised on the network news shows -- CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN . . . and probably all the rest. Those shows tend to attract an older demographic (i.e., those who need prescriptions) but, of course, the ads never mention prices.
You'd think, watching these types of ads, that you would be prescribed a happy pill -- virile, energetic, athletic, handsome (or pretty), smiling -- always smiling, and you'd be right. The message of the ads is to inspire you to call up the doc and say, "I need Invokana or [fill in the drug name] so I can feel just like those people I see on the screen."
You'd think, watching these types of ads, that you would be prescribed a happy pill -- virile, energetic, athletic, handsome (or pretty), smiling -- always smiling, and you'd be right. The message of the ads is to inspire you to call up the doc and say, "I need Invokana or [fill in the drug name] so I can feel just like those people I see on the screen."
8
Good points. The public pays for the ad when they buy the drugs. I recall my father who was a chemical engineer saying that the price of beer, perfume and similar products depended on how heavily it was advertised, not the cost of the chemical contents and their processing.
3
It is very simple. Permit the government to negotiate prices for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and the military with those prices applicable to all medications nationwide. How? By having congress pass such a law. Chances of passage? None to "when hell freezes over".
After that I am sure congress could address the issue in terms of profiteering, (it used to cost a dime but now a dollar), blackmail, (my drug or else??), or threat to do bodily harm, ( it only costs your life savings to keep you going). I am sure our overly lawyered congress could find a way. Unfortunately not the will.
Please forgive the semi-rant but this situation is truly unconscionable.
After that I am sure congress could address the issue in terms of profiteering, (it used to cost a dime but now a dollar), blackmail, (my drug or else??), or threat to do bodily harm, ( it only costs your life savings to keep you going). I am sure our overly lawyered congress could find a way. Unfortunately not the will.
Please forgive the semi-rant but this situation is truly unconscionable.
46
It is about time that Congress regulate drug prices. They know it's coming. And they don't care. The FDA needs to stop icing behind patient safety and do do something: let Canadian drugs in. Allow drugs manufactured in India. How expensive would it be to send a couple of inspectors to the drug plants on the subcontinent? And send Shkreli to Riker's! And his arrogant partner to Bedford Hills.
16
Drug prices will continue to increase because of the law of supply and demand. Unfortunately, we live in a country wherein healthcare is not universal. As a major segment in a capitalistic market, Americans should only be prepared to pay higher prices for drugs until most of their disposable income is spent on healthcare, drugs, food, insurance, and energy (oil). It seems we are spending most of our money preparing for death or trying to evade it.
4
Allow us to buy from Canada. why is competition and choice limited by Congress when it helps the little guy,
39
I have been buying several of my medications from reputable, dependable, and efficient on-line pharmacies in Canada for 5 years.
Several of the things I buy at their full list price are less than the co-pay from my vaunted drug insurance plan. The one touted by AARP.
I send a copy of a prescription via e-mail, get a call back from a knowledgable and friendly english speaking customer service rep who verifies my address and credit card info, and get my drugs a week or so later.
Several of the things I buy at their full list price are less than the co-pay from my vaunted drug insurance plan. The one touted by AARP.
I send a copy of a prescription via e-mail, get a call back from a knowledgable and friendly english speaking customer service rep who verifies my address and credit card info, and get my drugs a week or so later.
6
This would be solved by a single payer system with a competitive bid process to get drugs on an approved formulary.
23
True, but then we all, not just the rich, but every one of us, will have to pay much higher taxes, as does everyone in Europe.
1
I always find this argument confusing. We pay more per capita for health care no matter how you slice it. As long as health care is for-profit, we will pay more for it. It is not as simple as paying more taxes.
3
Well in that scenario, I do not see how we (or at least a lot of people) could possibly be paying more than we are already paying now. I would rather pay higher taxes and get sufficient health coverage than pay a burdensome amount for a spotty policy with a barely-there drug plan.
2
I am helping care for a friend with terminal throat cancer. The doctors will offer her morphine for pain. She has a bad reaction to it, so someone suggested oxycodone. This is available at a reasonable price in tablet form, but as she becomes increasingly unable to swallow, a liquid form would be a better option. However, the pharmaceutical company recently jacked up the price to $500 for a little bottle. When the time comes, my friend would also like to avail herself of the Death with Dignity act here in Oregon. The prescribed drug (Seconal) has been manufactured since 1934 and costs pennies to produce, but the pharmaceutical company has jacked up the price to $3000 for a lethal dose.
We don't need the "invisible hand" of the monopolistic market picking our pockets. We need price controls.
We don't need the "invisible hand" of the monopolistic market picking our pockets. We need price controls.
82
Would that the CEO take that lethal dose. It would be my treat.
3
BERNIE SANDERS:
‘’Yet, last year, nearly one in five Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 – 35 million people – did not get their prescriptions filled because they did not have enough money. In the wealthiest country in the history of the world, Americans should not have to live in fear that they will go bankrupt or die because they cannot afford to take the medication they need. Instead of listening to the demands of the pharmaceutical industry and their 1,400 lobbyists, it is time that Congress started listening to the American people’’ Bernie Sanders
‘’Write In’’ Bernie Sanders!
In November
‘’Yet, last year, nearly one in five Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 – 35 million people – did not get their prescriptions filled because they did not have enough money. In the wealthiest country in the history of the world, Americans should not have to live in fear that they will go bankrupt or die because they cannot afford to take the medication they need. Instead of listening to the demands of the pharmaceutical industry and their 1,400 lobbyists, it is time that Congress started listening to the American people’’ Bernie Sanders
‘’Write In’’ Bernie Sanders!
In November
47
But how and who will pay for it?
Oh right, this and all our problems will be solved by the 'revolution'.
Oh right, this and all our problems will be solved by the 'revolution'.
@FDM. The poor and middle class are paying for it. Bernie wants the billionaires and multimillionaires to chip in. Sorry you cannot see it that way.
4
The Valeant story tells it all...big Pharma is not going to lose any billions...
The boys on Wall Street and those CEO's need to make some bucks.
The boys on Wall Street and those CEO's need to make some bucks.
6
As with almost all the ills in this country, the campaign finance system is to blame. Take away the bribes to members of Congress from the drug company sugar daddies and maybe our elected representatives could get back to representing the rest of us. Their first step could be to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices and we could then go on from there. Take away the financial gifts from the health insurers to Congress and we might then be allowed to have a single-payer system with price caps on pharmaceuticals.
It's naïve to think that drug companies could be swayed by bad publicity in an era when one of the two major Presidential candidates thrives on it. Only government regulation is going to change things. Everyone -- Big Pharma, the insurers, the doctors, other providers, device makers and members of Congress -- are simply going to have to make do with less money. Somehow, a highly regulated healthcare industry can survive in Europe, so why not here?
It's naïve to think that drug companies could be swayed by bad publicity in an era when one of the two major Presidential candidates thrives on it. Only government regulation is going to change things. Everyone -- Big Pharma, the insurers, the doctors, other providers, device makers and members of Congress -- are simply going to have to make do with less money. Somehow, a highly regulated healthcare industry can survive in Europe, so why not here?
163
I think this is easier to fix than most people realize. Just take away health care benefits for members of Congress and the president, PERIOD. They don't have a problem with the way things are because they don't consider it their problem--us taxpaying chumps pay for whatever they need. Time to put a cold, hard stop to that.
1
“It’s sort of embedded in the health care system that the price is never the price, unless you’re a cash-paying customer,” said Adam J. Fein, president of Pembroke Consulting, a management advisory and business research company.
“And in that case, we soak the poor.”
Welcome to the American 0.1% rent-seeking business model of sustained economic violence on the least among us.
Don't innovate --- extort.
A monthly prescription for Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, costs $215 per customer in the USA.
The same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23.
According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs.
-- Gleevec (a cancer treatment): $6,214 (per month/per customer) in the United States, compared to just $1,141 in Canada and $2,697 in England.
-- Humira (for rheumatoid arthritis): $2,246 in the United States, compared to just $881 in Switzerland and $1,102 in England.
-- Cymbalta (for depression): $194 in the United States, compared to just $46 in England and $52 in the Netherlands.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/
Of course, all those other foreign governments represent their citizens with sensible regulations, whereas in America 0.1% citizens are the only ones represented by Greed Over People.
Time for another American Revolution.
“And in that case, we soak the poor.”
Welcome to the American 0.1% rent-seeking business model of sustained economic violence on the least among us.
Don't innovate --- extort.
A monthly prescription for Nexium, the popular acid reflux drug, costs $215 per customer in the USA.
The same prescription in the Netherlands costs about one-tenth less, just $23.
According to the International Federation of Health Plans, Americans pay anywhere from two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand name prescription drugs.
-- Gleevec (a cancer treatment): $6,214 (per month/per customer) in the United States, compared to just $1,141 in Canada and $2,697 in England.
-- Humira (for rheumatoid arthritis): $2,246 in the United States, compared to just $881 in Switzerland and $1,102 in England.
-- Cymbalta (for depression): $194 in the United States, compared to just $46 in England and $52 in the Netherlands.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/
Of course, all those other foreign governments represent their citizens with sensible regulations, whereas in America 0.1% citizens are the only ones represented by Greed Over People.
Time for another American Revolution.
214
Where and when? I'm in.
2
The medical industrial complex is equivalent to a criminal enterprise.Sick people are being victimized. And it is only a matter of time that this scourge will affect each of us or our family members.
This is one of many reasons why I encourage my son to emigrate... not just for his sake, but for his young children. They need to avoid the educational industrial complex.
So far, for us, the prison industrial and military industrial people not an issue. No draft. Keep our children safe.
I know you are aware Corporations Rule.
This is one of many reasons why I encourage my son to emigrate... not just for his sake, but for his young children. They need to avoid the educational industrial complex.
So far, for us, the prison industrial and military industrial people not an issue. No draft. Keep our children safe.
I know you are aware Corporations Rule.
5
If the health insurance program open to all federal employees and to families of Congress members were open to the public -- with a negotiated drug formulary based on average prices for the same in Western Europe -- things would be vastly improved.
1
can insurance companies form a coalition to negotiate drug prices? they ought to be able to
5
Yeah, unless you are Medicare, then you are prohibited by law! Go figure, I guess that line just got erroneously left in the federal register and no one caught it.
2
I am an endocrinologist and have type 1 diabetes myself. This article hit the nail perfectly on the head - it's the poor who pay the greatest price. Those who can least afford insurance and end up with high deductibles. Every endocrinologist I know is beside themselves at the cost of insulin. For all patients with type 1 diabetes and some with type 2, insulin is necessay for life itself. Many of us have seen patients admitted to the hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis because they can't afford insulin. The solutions will be complex and many, but this is a time for bipartisanship and I encourage everyone to be open to any and all solutions and write your legislators. I am, and I am encouraging my colleagues and patients to do so.
183
Excellent points, Dr. Tridgell. I, too, will write my Congress people and encourage my friends to do the same.
In my day, NPH insulin was good enough for most and cost bupkis.
2
Mr. David, about paying -- the working class does *not* pay a lot, by working and paying taxes and getting zip for ACA subsidies?
The math needs to be worked. Now.
The math needs to be worked. Now.
1
The impact of which is exacerbated by the geniuses in Congress who decided that Medicare shouldn't be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on prices.
62
As I mentioned in my previous comment, we need bipartisanship. Write your legislators. Tell them Medicare needs to negotiate. Critics say it won't help much. Tell that to my patients who can't afford meds. If those who oppose it in Congress don't do anything because they say it won't bring down costs that much (or because the drug lobby and pharmacy benfit manager lobby is too strong) then nothing chances. Write, again and again and again...
3
If you got $10 million from the pharmaceutical companies, you might have decided that Medicare shouldn't be able to negotiate prices too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin#Connections_to_Pharmaceutical...
2
yea capitalism. sky high prices are nothing compared to the evil of socialism. just ask a gazillionaire. or, a republican.
39
Bottom line is that ALL healthcare costs are rigged because of the insurance companies. There is no standard cost for anything because of the reimbursement rules. Get rid of insurance companies now! Trying to manipulate any other part of the system (hospital costs, doctor's fees, pharmacy costs) will never succeed as long as there is a private insurance system.
68
Single-payer is not the only possible solution. Some countries, like Germany, rely entirely on private insurers to pay for health care. But there, the insurers are required to be non-profit organizations, to accept all applicants, and to cover a prescribed set of health care expenses.
The most important issue is not who pays for health care -- government or private insurers -- but placing strict legal controls on what health care providers, including pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and hospitals, can charge. Allowing them to price gouge with impunity, as we do in this country, is barbaric.
The most important issue is not who pays for health care -- government or private insurers -- but placing strict legal controls on what health care providers, including pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and hospitals, can charge. Allowing them to price gouge with impunity, as we do in this country, is barbaric.
3
Yes, single payer for all, no insurance companies intermediaries.
2
to paraphrase Liberace, they're crying all th way to their swiss banks
15
It's easy to oversimplify this as capitalism vs socialism. Can you explain why drug prices have well outpaced inflation in recent years? Yes nothing creates more jobs than capitalism, but in his case greed has gone way too far.
1
These 'Big Pill' entities are doing real damage to us, and not just financially, but health wise. Look at the prescription drug addition epidemic for one good example.
The gloves have to come off and somebody needs to go to jail. This is exactly what our government WILL NOT do.
The last thing we as a nation can expect is any relief in this matter or any remedy to the big druggies that even smells like justice. Our government will do nothing about this, period.
It would have helped if in '09 Billy Tauzin wasn't chosen to design the drug component of Obamacare. At the time this explosion in prices was predicted as a result of Tauzin's fixing.
The gloves have to come off and somebody needs to go to jail. This is exactly what our government WILL NOT do.
The last thing we as a nation can expect is any relief in this matter or any remedy to the big druggies that even smells like justice. Our government will do nothing about this, period.
It would have helped if in '09 Billy Tauzin wasn't chosen to design the drug component of Obamacare. At the time this explosion in prices was predicted as a result of Tauzin's fixing.
8
The greed of U.S. Pharmaceutical companies is over-the-top. Drug prices, both brand name and generic, need to be regulated by the Federal Government. End of story.
The prices should be aligned with what consumers are paying in Canada and other countries. Americans are getting soaked while the rest of the world buys these same drugs at a fraction of the cost. With single payer healthcare looming on the horizon, the pressing need for strict price regulation of prescription drugs is a foregone conclusion.
And when prices are regulated, no whining by big Pharma! They will have brought it on themselves...100%.
The prices should be aligned with what consumers are paying in Canada and other countries. Americans are getting soaked while the rest of the world buys these same drugs at a fraction of the cost. With single payer healthcare looming on the horizon, the pressing need for strict price regulation of prescription drugs is a foregone conclusion.
And when prices are regulated, no whining by big Pharma! They will have brought it on themselves...100%.
79
It is time to stop the charade and end patent protection of drugs. The FDA should exist to inspect drug quality but not protect drug trademarks.
Virtually all drug research is paid for by the government, anyway. There are vast millions of affluent non-caregiver, non-researcher professionals in healthcare, in drug marketing, insurance planning etc, making a living off the suffering of sick people in the USA. It is these vast armies of 100k+ earners who need to be laid off and re-employed ditch digging or else living in a refugee camp as they seek viable options far away from the United States. The time has come to drain the swamp.
Virtually all drug research is paid for by the government, anyway. There are vast millions of affluent non-caregiver, non-researcher professionals in healthcare, in drug marketing, insurance planning etc, making a living off the suffering of sick people in the USA. It is these vast armies of 100k+ earners who need to be laid off and re-employed ditch digging or else living in a refugee camp as they seek viable options far away from the United States. The time has come to drain the swamp.
65
Whew!!
"Virtually all" drug research is *not paid for by the government. The government does a lot of basic research, looking at disease processes and discovering proteins, receptors, and enzymes that can be drug targets.
Private industry does a lot of "translational research," converting theory to practice, and looks at process chemistry, drug metabolism, pharmacokinetics, and safety science to come up with with bioeffective compounds, dosages, and safety standards.
The public sector complements the private sector, but the idea that it does "all drug research" is a myth.
"Virtually all" drug research is *not paid for by the government. The government does a lot of basic research, looking at disease processes and discovering proteins, receptors, and enzymes that can be drug targets.
Private industry does a lot of "translational research," converting theory to practice, and looks at process chemistry, drug metabolism, pharmacokinetics, and safety science to come up with with bioeffective compounds, dosages, and safety standards.
The public sector complements the private sector, but the idea that it does "all drug research" is a myth.
1
Meanwhile, a class action lawsuit filed in federal court last year against CVS Health is still proceeding. The accusation: CVS Health charges third-party payers and consumers more for generic drugs than if you had simply were a cash paying customer.
The whole "sophistication" of the PBM argument works well for CVS Health, which ensures that the ridiculous pricing structures remain in place. What exactly does CVS Health add to the picture other than an obfuscating middleman? Profits are up every year for their shareholders...by design. That this huge conflict of interest goes unmentioned in the article shows that the NY Times is not digging deep enough into this issue.
The whole "sophistication" of the PBM argument works well for CVS Health, which ensures that the ridiculous pricing structures remain in place. What exactly does CVS Health add to the picture other than an obfuscating middleman? Profits are up every year for their shareholders...by design. That this huge conflict of interest goes unmentioned in the article shows that the NY Times is not digging deep enough into this issue.
43
I can't help but ask why a class action suit was needed for this. All one has to do is tell your pharmacy to not charge your insurance. Sure, Walgreens might have a problem with that, one reason I stopped using that chain for anything, but most others don't try to force the issue. I use local pharmacy prices whenever they are equal to or less than insurance. I often have to remind pharmacy staff to do this (notes are often ignored and billing insurance is always the default), but it's apparently acceptable practice. Don't consumers bear some responsibility for acting in their own best interests?
My insurer had a copay of $22/month for a low dose of a generic statin. They had negotiated/colluded with CVS to provide a 3 month supply of the same drug for $45.
Online pharmacies would supply 3 months for $12 and when I asked a local pharmacy for the cost of a 3 month supply, it was just under $15. My health insurer and CVS are together extorting the drug cost 3 to 6 fold higher than the open market. My present tax is pay into this corrupt system.
Extortion does not see to be an issue is counties with single payer heath care.
Online pharmacies would supply 3 months for $12 and when I asked a local pharmacy for the cost of a 3 month supply, it was just under $15. My health insurer and CVS are together extorting the drug cost 3 to 6 fold higher than the open market. My present tax is pay into this corrupt system.
Extortion does not see to be an issue is counties with single payer heath care.
2
I agree that consumers do bear some responsibility but most are poorly positioned to do so. A paradox is that a pharmacist is supposed to act in their patient's best interest. It should be a practice guideline to supply the prescribed drug at the lowest cost.
This is where we can see directly how our bought-off Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, collude with their corporate constituency at the expense of the people who vote for them.
116
Pigs for Profit. This is what happens when we have a health care system for profit. These same Pig Pharma companies will sell the identical drug in Canada for less than they sell it here.
We need a single payer system that has monopoly control of these vultures of death. Only in America.
We need a single payer system that has monopoly control of these vultures of death. Only in America.
159
canada mandates prices drug companies can charge or they cant peddle their stuff in canada
in mexico, thlow income level of th people dictates how much they can charge
guess where they make it up ?
oh, go on, just guess
in mexico, thlow income level of th people dictates how much they can charge
guess where they make it up ?
oh, go on, just guess
21
Itcolskippy,
The drug syndicate seems to have whole departments dedicated to making up new, catchy names for the same old poison. Many are pills to make your other pills work.
Insanity.
Only in 'FAIL STATUS' America can this stuff go down.
The drug syndicate seems to have whole departments dedicated to making up new, catchy names for the same old poison. Many are pills to make your other pills work.
Insanity.
Only in 'FAIL STATUS' America can this stuff go down.
Perhaps we should just nationalize the whole industry!
or less drastic lets just mandate that no company can charge anymore on any drug than the lowest price that it is offered for in the world!.
And we should stop letting the industry purchase the generic manufacturers just to keep competition out of the market.
This industry is not real capitalism, but rigged, or crony, or exploitative capitalism and it is killing people, legally. It must be stopped or killed as an industry.
or less drastic lets just mandate that no company can charge anymore on any drug than the lowest price that it is offered for in the world!.
And we should stop letting the industry purchase the generic manufacturers just to keep competition out of the market.
This industry is not real capitalism, but rigged, or crony, or exploitative capitalism and it is killing people, legally. It must be stopped or killed as an industry.
1
Direct to consumer drug advertising is one big reason why prescription drugs are so expensive in the U.S. We are one of only two countries in the world (the other is New Zealand) that allows this terrible practice which doesn't educate consumers. Rather, it sets them up to ask for or demand drugs from their doctor.
103
I agree, though they still spend far more advertising to physicians. In the land of free speach this isn't going to change, but some have proposed changing tax laws so they wouldn't get this as a deduction. I think that would be a pragmatic approach.
26
These frequently dangerous drugs should not be advertised to adults any more than tobacco or alcohol to kids.
Odd how the two components of the ACA that would have allowed the most reform to healthcare in the US, the public option, and the mandate for Medicare to negotiate the best drug prices, were so quickly dropped from consideration.
Odd how the two components of the ACA that would have allowed the most reform to healthcare in the US, the public option, and the mandate for Medicare to negotiate the best drug prices, were so quickly dropped from consideration.
1
Readers interested in just how bad drug ads are might read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/this-drug-ad-is-not-right-for-... .
1
If Congress -- & Presidential candidates, too -- hope to have any credibility with voters the'd better give up their allegiance to Big Pharma. This is such a disgrace.
They could also lift the ban on consumers directly ordering their meds from Canana.
The complex of our government and Big Pharma is disgusting.
They could also lift the ban on consumers directly ordering their meds from Canana.
The complex of our government and Big Pharma is disgusting.
114
I agree...I thought we had a free trade agreement with Canada? Let me guess there is an exemption for prescription drugs, one of the things that would significantly help average Americans.
2
Mary,
Unfortunately Billy Tauzin nixed that when he designed the new drug policy for America in 09/10. Ditto allowing Medicare the ability to negotiate for lowest drug prices.
Unfortunately Billy Tauzin nixed that when he designed the new drug policy for America in 09/10. Ditto allowing Medicare the ability to negotiate for lowest drug prices.
3
It is called Friendly Fascism. This is the title of a book which can be found wherever on line books are sold. Think of a very strong woman from South America who lives near a very large river.
3