Posted on 09/23/2015 8:59:46 AM PDT by SatinDoll
C'mon folks, this isn't complicated.
Hill used Indian government data on the cost of pharmaceutical ingredients and allowed for a 50-percent profit margin - but no money for investment in research - to work out the costs of producing certain drugs.
On this basis, he found that Novartis' leukaemia drug Glivec actually cost $159 for a year's treatment, against the $106,000 charged in the United States.
Roche's Tarceva for lung cancer cost $236, against a U.S. price of $79,000, and Novartis' Tykerb cost $4,000 against a price of $74,000.
In all these cases the U.S. cost was far above that charged in certain western European countries, where Glivec costs approximately $29,000-35,000, Tarceva $26,000-29,000 and Tykerb around $35,000, Hill reported.
How do you have a price that is double to triple that charged in other western European nations in the United States?
There is only one way: You must both eviscerate private property rights -- that is, the right to do with something you lawfully acquire as you wish and you must completely ignore 15 USC which criminalizes attempted price-fixing.
You cannot price-fix in the market if you charge different prices in different places without both -- at least not by more than the cost of transportation plus a relatively small amount of profit!
There is no "market" in these drugs and the drug-makers have lobbied for and obtained the legal environment that makes this so. This is trivially easy to correct -- put a stop to that crap by enforcing the "first sale" doctrine (that which I own is mine to dispose of as I wish) and vigorously prosecute any attempt to constrain markets, sales and distribution where market power exists.
This would result in an immediate leveling of prices across the world for these drugs. They might rise in some other nations, maybe in a lot of other nations. But they would drop like a stone here.
Everyone wants to talk about forcing price levels for US sale. There is no need to force anything. Simply enforce the right to sell whatever you own and prosecute any corporation (and its executives) that try to restrict distribution and cross-border shipment of such drugs.
The free market is usually the way to go to establish a fair price. I don’t see the free market working in issues relating to pancreatic and lung cancer. Cranking the prices up like this isn’t free market: it’s legal extortion. It needs to stop.
Some countries cap the price so the companies make up for it via the price They charge in free market countries.
The pharmafascists don’t like that kind of talk.
The whole damn industry from providers to insurance companies is a scam. The government has no interest in solving it, because not only are politicians are paid by the interested parties, but the 1/5 of the economy being extorted by these thieves makes it appear as though there is ‘economic growth’.
She recieved chemo on Tuesday, week one. 2 drugs, whose name escapes me as I type but, drug one cost $11,000 per round and drug 2 cost $5,500 per round. Two weeks later her treatment was drug one only for $11,000 and on wednesday she went in for a shot...Neulasta, I beleive, and that cost $11,500. This went on for 10 and a half months. She died 3 days shy of 11 months. My insurance paid for most of this but I'll be paying off my share for a while. I don't mind paying...I would have gladly gone into hock for the rest of my life if it would have saved her. What I do mind is knowing that there's no way in the world that these costs are justified and that as long as the pharma industry can collect these outrageous sums there's no incentive for them to really find a cure for cancer.
I'm a cancer survivor myself and if I'm ever diagnosed with an advanced stage cancer 3-4 I will not opt for any treatment. I was lucky. I had Renal Cell Carcinoma and all they had to do for me was remove a kidney, but if it comes back it's stage 4. I would never ever counsel anyone who is diagnosed with stage 4 cancer to put themself through chemo. Never. Not after seeing what my dear wife endured.
I used to get Celecoxib (generic Celebrex) from India because the FDA kept extending extending Pfizer's exclusivity on the product. Now that it is finally generic, my shitty company insurance pays for it. I still get a couple of medications from Canada.
I am an 83 year old woman.
I don’t get any routine tests,like mammograms,anymore.
I told my doctor I just want palliative care and that’s it. No treatment so why bother with tests.
.
Turn on the boob tube and all you see are ads from lawyers suing pharmaceutical companies.
They could put an end to that practice in a hurry by counties such as the United States simply allowing re-importation of the same drugs. There is no reason that we should be subsidizing the rest of the world, particular countries such as Canada which are more wealthy than ours.
They make sure it gets to the proper pockets in Washington to ensure that things stay the way they are.
Prayers for you, my FRiend. Wife unit and I just celebrated our 40th - don’t know how I could survive without her, but our Lord would show me the way, I am certain.
Today you can legally be a heroin addict if you pay all the kings men! Why do you REALLY think we're still in Afghanistone? The spice must flow.
Exactly!
Does anyone believe that the American Cancer Society has any vested interest in finding a cure for cancer? No way.
So basically, the US consumer is, thanks to lobbying efforts by the pharmaceutical industry, subsidizing cheap drugs for the rest of the world.
I believe that India does not protect the intellectual property of the drug companies. Nobody is going to pay enormous sums to create drugs which can then be freely copied by anybody else.
Glivec is only about twenty years old or less. The benefits to be derived from it will extend far past the day when it becomes more freely available. Patent protection is an important part of the success of western economies and shouldn't be eliminated or reduced. The inequities is pricing from one nation to another is a small price to pay for the benefits derived.
Yes, drugs cost less in Mexico, but how many life saving pharmaceuticals have come out of the Mexican drug industry? None, that I can think of.
Drugs cost less in Canada, but the last major drug to come out of Canadian research is insulin, and that was before Canada's health industry became socialized.
Thanks! We were married 30 years. Living without her has proven to be extremely difficult but I'm finding my way. I think I miss her more every day.
“Why invest in a cure when there’s good money to be made in prolonging the problem?” -Big Pharma
Well, a few reasons... Much of the time, it is excess inventory or licenses which are sold to those countries - additional profit with little investment, and subsidized through sales to US customers.
Beyond, there is little ability in India, for example, for a massive multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit. And honestly, once approved by the FDA, almost any drug is automatically approved in other jurisdictions.
To me, the real solution involves this: A considerable amount of the sticker price for drugs is to cover the inevitable class action lawsuits that are to come. Instead, add a small tax to prescription drugs to go into a FDA fund which will pay ALL claims for any drug issues and put in stiff criminal penalties for any drug company that conceals or inflates any data from drug trials and reports after the drugs are released.
When drug companies no longer need a one to ten billion dollar contingency fund to cover future court claims, the prices will fall sharply. If you further make it illegal for drug companies to directly market to doctors, you cut costs even more dramatically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.