- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lets talk Yangs HC Plan
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:42 am to Sneaky__Sally
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:42 am to Sneaky__Sally
Let me give you an example of what I am getting at:
Gilead cures Hep C effectively for the world. They were able to charge something like $64K in the U.S. In India, for example, they charged something like $4 for the treatment. Eventually the patent expired and the cost decreased dramatically because of competition from within the U.S. The real question is, without the monopolistic pricing powers, would we have a cure for Hep C at all? If the U.S. government can force the company to pin the price at $4 a pill there would be no profit incentive to create the treatment in the first place.
The government would be driving business out of the U.S. and would be sacraficing quality for cost more than likely. The U.S. consumer wants it both ways in this regard and it's not possible. If the government can retroactively choose which drugs they feel are overpriced, drug companies will move production to another market knowing when they have a blockbuster drug, they have no pricing power or profit incentive.
Yes, I think they would wait until the government was willing to pay a higher price due to pressures from consumers.
Gilead cures Hep C effectively for the world. They were able to charge something like $64K in the U.S. In India, for example, they charged something like $4 for the treatment. Eventually the patent expired and the cost decreased dramatically because of competition from within the U.S. The real question is, without the monopolistic pricing powers, would we have a cure for Hep C at all? If the U.S. government can force the company to pin the price at $4 a pill there would be no profit incentive to create the treatment in the first place.
The government would be driving business out of the U.S. and would be sacraficing quality for cost more than likely. The U.S. consumer wants it both ways in this regard and it's not possible. If the government can retroactively choose which drugs they feel are overpriced, drug companies will move production to another market knowing when they have a blockbuster drug, they have no pricing power or profit incentive.
quote:
You think that a drug company would bail on the US market if the US offered to purchase at the same rate seen in other highly developed Western European countries?
Yes, I think they would wait until the government was willing to pay a higher price due to pressures from consumers.
1
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:53 am to wutangfinancial
I understand but the $4 is not what I want - which is why I am saying compare it to the mean pricing in developed western european countries with advanced economies.
But there is a middle ground, the drug companies are still going to be making tons of money and they aren't going to leave that money on the table IMO.
The advanced countries can still subsidize the cures, but it shouldn't just be the US citizens burden. The drug companies should charge the same or very similar rates in the US and UK for example - this is clearly going to be far higher than the rate in undeveloped / third world countries - as it should be.
I think that the drug companies are fleecing the US citizens because they can via the system, I don't think this would significantly impact innovation - it may result in higher prices in Western Europe if they feel the need to recoup that, but that is fine with me.
I really don't see the drug companies bailing on the US - way too much money to be had, even if we take steps to reduce these kind of costs and bloat, at least IMO.
But there is a middle ground, the drug companies are still going to be making tons of money and they aren't going to leave that money on the table IMO.
The advanced countries can still subsidize the cures, but it shouldn't just be the US citizens burden. The drug companies should charge the same or very similar rates in the US and UK for example - this is clearly going to be far higher than the rate in undeveloped / third world countries - as it should be.
I think that the drug companies are fleecing the US citizens because they can via the system, I don't think this would significantly impact innovation - it may result in higher prices in Western Europe if they feel the need to recoup that, but that is fine with me.
I really don't see the drug companies bailing on the US - way too much money to be had, even if we take steps to reduce these kind of costs and bloat, at least IMO.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News