Pharmaceutical Companies: Jon Tester "is expected to be a problem."

Profit Incentive and Free Market Work (0.00 / 0)

Taking away the profit incentive from pharmaceutical companies is unwise.  The free market should determine the price of drugs.

Your desire to save consumers and the government money will only reduce the amount of research and development of new drugs.

All the significant drug breakthroughs happen in the US because of the free market.  Take it away and you take away the incentive to develop new miricle drugs.

It's simply the way things work. 

You ought to get behind Wal Mart's efforts to offer inexpensive drugs.  Is the reason you don't because you oppose the free market and prefer government control?

---

by: Andy B. Hammond @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 19:03:51 PM UTC

There is No Free Market for Drugs (0.00 / 0)

Patent law prevents that. Patents are inherently anti-market forces meant to protect intellectual property from the profit-minizing power of markets.

But patent law has gone way too far. Empowering negotiations from large purchasers is a good move.

Pharmaceutical profits are currently absolutely insane -- because the deck is stacked in favor of the companies. We need to change the rules and level the playing field.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 20:02:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Middle Ground (0.00 / 0)

Do you have any suggestions at this middle ground.  I mean a system that cuts the margins for the Pharmacy giants while at the same time does not kill the incentive for these companies to come up with and produce the drugs? 

I think this one ripples out pretty far.  We do not want to cut research grants to universities and we do not want prices so low that people go overboard on drugs.  Sometimes the expense of drugs that are more collateral to a problem lead people to try alternative treatments.  I think that we both know that "they" make a drug for almost any ailment when a nice glass of tea will often do the trick. 

I would be interested to hear what your, or Tester's ideas are for this issue/problem however you see it. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 23:26:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's Some Fairly Easy Stuff (0.00 / 0)

Including negotiations and preferred drug lists. One of the biggest areas of waste is in areas where there are brand name drugs that are more expensive, but no more effective, than similar generics or competitors' drugs. Requiring doctors to affirmatively opt-out any time they prescribe a drug not on the preferred list is an easy reform and it saved millions in Oregon.

The pharmaceutical companies are making billions in profits right now. Price negotiations under Part D will not kill those profits. They'll be able to keep their R&D budgets.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 23:54:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any specifics? (0.00 / 0)

Matt,

Do you have any examples or specifics of successes (possibly on the state level) in negotiating better pricing for brand name drugs for which generics are not available?

I have read of the stories of people going to Canada to fill prescriptions for significantly less $$ than in the US.  How is this possible?  Are these drugs subsidized in Canada or is this a function of better negotiated (by Canada) pricing?

---

by: eganwh @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 00:46:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sad but true (0.00 / 0)

I think that we all know someone who either goes to Mexico or Canada now for various drugs.  I wish this were not the case and I agree that the margins are too high.  I saw the Wal-Mart $4 plan, but I wonder if this is a facade or a real effort at lowering prices.  Another possible solution would be a reform of the patenting process so generic drugs could hit the market sooner than 7 years.  Could give people some options and help hold the inflated prices down.  I tend to be a fan of market competition as a check for inflation. 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 01:11:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And (0.00 / 0)

"Requiring doctors to affirmatively opt-out any time they prescribe a drug not on the preferred list is an easy reform and it saved millions in Oregon."

Do any of our Reps currently endorse/consider such a plan? 

---

by: Atlas1 @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 01:12:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The VA Does It (0.00 / 0)

Some states do it, too. But the VA is the best example. Medicare would be a far larger purchasr and would be able to negotiate even better rates.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 02:41:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is currently the problem? (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like a no brainer.  Why isn't m-care/caid using this purchasing power to leverage a better price in bulk from the drug compainies?  What do we need to do to make this happen?

Leveraging purchasing power BTW is as free market as it gets.  Big companies do this very frequently with suppliers.

---

by: eganwh @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 17:29:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Medicare Part D prohibits Price Negotiations (0.00 / 0)

So we need to rewrite Medicare Part D. Senator Baucus is the chair of the committee responsible for it. Send him a letter encouraging him to do it.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 19:17:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]