You're viewing a single thread.
Negotiating drug prices? How about making price gouging ILLEGAL? How about a world market price for drugs instead of a monopoly market in America?
I can go through the entire list like this. Trying to cheer for these crumbs is contortion at it's most contorting.
Most governments negotiate the drug prices around the world. This is standard practice. They have buying power so they can get far better pricing than anyone else. Just because it's a new concept to you, doesn't make it stupid.
The fact that it's standard practice doesn't make it non-stupid. Bullfighting in my country, Spain, is pretty stupid and unfortunately in some areas it's general practice.
The very concept of a patent is tenuous: "no, you can't make this, this is MY idea and I get to decide who profits by how much and who enjoys my invention". When applied to medicine, it's downright immoral and murderous. Even with negotiation of drug prices, you end up with things like the Hepatitis C curing drug costing several tens of thousands of Euros per patient even in European countries, whereas it costs less than one tenth of that in some others. It's just this is paid by the state and not by the end user so it's not as Machiavellian as in the USA, but it's still extremely fucked.
If you want some of the few examples of countries that don't follow the "standard practice", you can look at Cuba being the first country in the world to double-vaccinate 95+% of their population with the COVID vaccine. How? State-funded research, and state-funded vaccine manufacturing, with the primary objective of vaccinating as many as possible as early as possible, instead of the profit motive as the driver.
I sure don't know everything, but why mention it then? It's just normal? Or is this new for the US?
How is it negotiation when there is only one medicine, like in the case of insulin, or even Zolgensma? What chips does the government have to negotiate with? Buying power doesn't matter.
I still think that's screwed up, and needs fixing, but if it brought us in line with the rest of the world when it comes to drug prices, then bring it on.
They are negotiating the prices paid for drugs by Medicare. You know, like, the largest single purchaser of drugs in the country. That purchase power was not being negotiated prior. They have started with a list of 10 drugs and will expand over time. This can affect prices in a few ways, like insurers saying fuck that and wanting the same rate as the government, manufacturers could set the pricing to match across the board like Eli Lilly did for insulin for non Medicare patients, or we could vote for a fully democratic Senate, house, and president and get Medicare for all, with which this existing law would wield immense powers to negotiate far more benefits for many more people. Gimme 63 Dems in the Senate and shit will get passed. The reason we are stuck like this is that the margin is so slim nothing can happen.
Here's a quote from the HHS.
The selected drug list for the first round of negotiation is:
Eliquis Jardiance Xarelto Januvia Farxiga Entresto Enbrel Imbruvica Stelara Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill These selected drugs accounted for $50.5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs, or about 20%, of total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs between June 1, 2022 and May 31, 2023, which is the time period used to determine which drugs were eligible for negotiation. CMS will publish any agreed-upon negotiated prices for the selected drugs by September 1, 2024; those prices will come into effect starting January 1, 2026. In future years, CMS will select for negotiation up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for 2027, up to 15 more drugs for 2028 (including drugs covered under Part B and Part D), and up to 20 more drugs for each year after that, as outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act.
There are 3 companies that produce insulin. Why don't you ask some of your Canadian neighbors how much they pay for insulin.
I mean, I'm with you that would be great, but the President isn't a dictator. I don't know why this keeps coming up, I don't want one person having the power to make huge sweeping decisions because they feel like it.
Holding the president to an impossible standard is only going to hurt getting where we're trying to go here.
Comparably he's doing more stuff than obama with less legislative backing. I think, in general, US presidents are going to be shit piles no matter what until our electoral system undergoes some changes (probably first at the state constitution level)