- 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: Republicans and Democrats vote down amendment that would allow for cheaper drugs
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:02 pm to CorporateTiger
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:02 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:Although I clearly don't know the nuances of this issue, your post pretty much sums up why their argument seems confusing on its face.
allowing the FDA to craft rules around reimportation from Canada is somehow more risky than the FDA crafting rules to import directly from third world countries is ridiculous.
If we already import drugs and set standards around them, why would Canada of all places be any different than any of those other place?
0
Posted on 1/12/17 at 8:05 pm to ljhog
quote:I don't understand your argument. Why would opening the market fail to account for the other US companies in the market?
And frick every political who voted for it and every dumbass who supports it for failing to take into account the millions of people alive today thanks to U.S. pharmaceutical companies
I don't see anyone saying, "shut down US pharmaceutical companies." Just like my wife driving a Hyundai doesn't mean we are saying "shut down Ford, GM, etc."
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:26 am to the808bass
quote:
quote:
Besides that, demand is extremely sticky in this market. Consumers aren't very price-sensitive even at the point of purchase.
I think you may be completely uninformed about price as it relates to pharmaceuticals.
Do you have data that says demand for prescription pharmaceuticals is elastic?
Because everything I have ever seen in my work and read says that it is among the most price inelastic products out there.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:27 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:34 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I don't understand your argument. Why would opening the market fail to account for the other US companies in the market?
I don't see anyone saying, "shut down US pharmaceutical companies." Just like my wife driving a Hyundai doesn't mean we are saying "shut down Ford, GM, etc."
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that it's essentially a backdoor way to under-cut US pharmaceutical IP. Same product sold at a much lower rate in another country because of purchasing monospony then shipped back into the U.S. at a small margin that way under-cuts the price here.
Others in this thread mentioned a very real issue - the regulatory framework around this stuff often raises the price back up to somewhere around where it retails here, but the key difference is that the added value isn't going to the actual holder of the IP (so that the firm can re-invest in its business and develop or acquire more products, i.e. new drugs or devices that save lives or improve the welfare of the people) like it should in a well-functioning market. It's going to the government or the importer/distributor.
I'm not doing both sides of the argument complete justice. Like everything else, it's complicated.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:58 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:50 am to CommoDawg
Let's examine some of the other amendments:
A pattern seems to be emerging.
quote:
SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT SLASHES THE COMPENSATION OF INDIVIDUAL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that directly reduces the compensation of 1 or more individual Federal employees.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three- fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).
quote:
SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT FAILS TO PROTECT HEALTH CARE CONSUMERS.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that increases health insurance premiums, reduces cost-sharing subsidies, increases deductibles, or reduces network adequacy.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three- fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).
A pattern seems to be emerging.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 1:02 am to FooManChoo
quote:Booker is completely FOS.
Apparently the issue was around drug safety standards
His 'out' likely comes directly from work with Big Pharma lobbyists. It's the same approach which was used by various proPharma Senators to shut down Hillary's attempt at a drug import bill just after she arrived in the Senate.
Ensuring "foreign drugs meet American safety standards" would require Big Pharma submitting those drugs to the FDA for approval. They'd never do that.
So in cooperation with BigPharma, Booker can suggest a plan that sounds good. and seems to put Booker on the people's side, but in reality won't change a thing.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 1:58 am
Posted on 1/13/17 at 4:30 am to NC_Tigah
1. It is the rare member of Congress that doesn't take money from Big Pharma. Also rare to find a passed bill that benefits the consumer over Big Pharma.
2. Corey Booker is running for president in 2020. This is just one of the many ways he will play both sides of an issue.
3. R&D is important and this country should lead the way. But the expense should be shared. We will always pay the most but Canada, European countries, etc should share more of the burden.
2. Corey Booker is running for president in 2020. This is just one of the many ways he will play both sides of an issue.
3. R&D is important and this country should lead the way. But the expense should be shared. We will always pay the most but Canada, European countries, etc should share more of the burden.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 5:09 am to monceaux
quote:He's not playing both sides of an issue. He's flatly lying. Pols do that all the time, but I'm simply illuminating the fact for the earlier poster or others who'd cite Booker's position with anything but cynicism.
Corey Booker is running for president in 2020. This is just one of the many ways he will play both sides of an issue.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:04 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That's what the MSM and politicians say to each other all the time: "SENATOR X VOTES NAY AND IS PRO FLEAS!"
This is the one thing I hate about modern politics and they way congress is run.
Almost every bill has some election-driven verbiage that is designed merely to have an 'issue' for use in the next election. Pisses me off. This is just another example.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:41 am to CommoDawg
My guess is that the drugs are safe and effective. Canada isn't some backwoods, third world country. If the drugs are acceptable to the Canadians than I'm very confident that they're safe and that I'd be comfortable taking them. Frick the price gouging pharmaceutical companies.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Ensuring "foreign drugs meet American safety standards" would require Big Pharma submitting those drugs to the FDA for approval. They'd never do that.
What does this even mean?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:56 am to CommoDawg
So its for the safety of the medicine we take?
Well I find that to be strange as the endless pharma commercials on tv scare the hell out of me..."zerpraxin may cause bleeding, ulcers, extra limbs, aids, a third eye, death or even worse more painful death and penis cancer so call your doctor if you have any of these symptoms."
Yeah safety
Well I find that to be strange as the endless pharma commercials on tv scare the hell out of me..."zerpraxin may cause bleeding, ulcers, extra limbs, aids, a third eye, death or even worse more painful death and penis cancer so call your doctor if you have any of these symptoms."
Yeah safety
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:03 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Do you have data that says demand for prescription pharmaceuticals is elastic?
Did you link a paper that is written about pharmaceuticals in Denmark?
I have experience that say demand for one prescription over another equivalent prescription is very elastic. So much so that a generic drug which comes on the market will take over that therapeutic class within a matter of months. Within a few days of a generic Allegra arriving on the market, over 80% of prescriptions for Allegra at the pharmacy were being filled with a generic. That's one example. There's hundreds of examples like this.
Part of the inelasticity that remains is because the cost of the drug is not paid at the point of sale. So, if drug X costs $238 cash for a prescription but with insurance it's $3 for the person at the point of sale (a true life story from my life last week), there's not a way to assess what the demand for the drug actually is. Add in MAC pricing, AWP pricing, rebates, discounts, tiers and the purchaser is shielded from the cost in a million different ways.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:09 am to the808bass
quote:
Did you link a paper that is written about pharmaceuticals in Denmark?
I have experience that say demand for one prescription over another equivalent prescription is very elastic. So much so that a generic drug which comes on the market will take over that therapeutic class within a matter of months. Within a few days of a generic Allegra arriving on the market, over 80% of prescriptions for Allegra at the pharmacy were being filled with a generic. That's one example. There's hundreds of examples like this.
Part of the inelasticity that remains is because the cost of the drug is not paid at the point of sale. So, if drug X costs $238 cash for a prescription but with insurance it's $3 for the person at the point of sale (a true life story from my life last week), there's not a way to assess what the demand for the drug actually is. Add in MAC pricing, AWP pricing, rebates, discounts, tiers and the purchaser is shielded from the cost in a million different ways.
I wasn't talking about a market with generics. Obviously, that will be an entirely different scenario, and yes, prices are extremely elastic. I am talking about the development, sale, and distribution of the initial IP through its 15 year lifetime.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 8:44 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
I think he's saying that it's essentially a backdoor way to under-cut US pharmaceutical IP. Same product sold at a much lower rate in another country because of purchasing monospony then shipped back into the U.S. at a small margin that way under-cuts the price here.
That is really mixing subjects. IP rights involve protecting Merck, as an example, against a third-party manufacturing their drug and selling it for a profit (assuming Merck has a valid patent covering the drug). IP rights are not meant to protect Merck (or any other pharma company) from the implications of other countries anti-competitive buying/pricing practices.
I have seen no evidence that there are significant infringement issues with Canadian drugs. Further US IP rights are enforceable in Canada. Lastly reimportation of the drug increases the chance that the patent holder could pursue a claim in US courts (as well as Canadian), which would actually increase their odds of having their IP protected. Again all that is separate from Canada's drug purchasing practices.
quote:
that the added value isn't going to the actual holder of the IP (so that the firm can re-invest in its business and develop or acquire more products, i.e. new drugs or devices that save lives or improve the welfare of the people
If a third-party adds value to a product by arbitraging it, then that company is completely entitled to keep that profit. Again IP laws do not mean that the patent holder gets 100% of the profit, especially where they do not actually create the profit (because they didn't take the risk on the reimportation failing or the market moving against them).
Pharma companies make a choice to forego many sections of the total potential profit they could make. If part of that profit is reimportation then it is up to the company to decide how to handle that.
Your argument is tantamount to saying it is wrong for CVS to make a profit on patented drugs, when CVS actually adds value to these products by (1) transporting them to the end user and (2) providing a convenient customer experience.
quote:
It's going to the government or the importer/distributor.
So let's take a non-pharma patented product. If I see a potential to buy graphics cards in Canada and reimport them and sell to US consumers, I shouldn't be allowed to? Even though Nvidia already sold those cards and no longer has any interest in them?
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:00 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
That is really mixing subjects. IP rights involve protecting Merck, as an example, against a third-party manufacturing their drug and selling it for a profit (assuming Merck has a valid patent covering the drug). IP rights are not meant to protect Merck (or any other pharma company) from the implications of other countries anti-competitive buying/pricing practices.
I have seen no evidence that there are significant infringement issues with Canadian drugs. Further US IP rights are enforceable in Canada. Lastly reimportation of the drug increases the chance that the patent holder could pursue a claim in US courts (as well as Canadian), which would actually increase their odds of having their IP protected. Again all that is separate from Canada's drug purchasing practices.
You can't separate the two practices from the point of view of the firm. Not possible in this market. The monopsony radically changes how they're going to approach all pricing. I don't think they're too concerned with IP infringement pretty much anywhere.
quote:
If a third-party adds value to a product by arbitraging it, then that company is completely entitled to keep that profit. Again IP laws do not mean that the patent holder gets 100% of the profit, especially where they do not actually create the profit (because they didn't take the risk on the reimportation failing or the market moving against them).
Pharma companies make a choice to forego many sections of the total potential profit they could make. If part of that profit is reimportation then it is up to the company to decide how to handle that.
Well, yes, that's because of the legal and political structure in many of these places, not because of strategic market decisions.
This sort of move would essentially remove the risk of reimportation from the arbitrager (who now has little to no risk at either the purchase or sale); they've become rent-seekers. Of course, the pharma companies are going to fight it.
quote:
Your argument is tantamount to saying it is wrong for CVS to make a profit on patented drugs, when CVS actually adds value to these products by (1) transporting them to the end user and (2) providing a convenient customer experience.
If CVS was the only legal purchaser in the United States, it'd be a fair analogy, but they aren't, so it isn't.
quote:
o let's take a non-pharma patented product. If I see a potential to buy graphics cards in Canada and reimport them and sell to US consumers, I shouldn't be allowed to? Even though Nvidia already sold those cards and no longer has any interest in them?
Again, purchasing relationship makes this analogy fall flat. If the government was the only buyer of graphics cards in Canada and was able to significantly drive down purchasing price and THEN the cards were re-imported for sale, you'd have an argument. I am certain Nvidia would have interest in them again; they're subsidizing a direct competitor via monopsony at that point, not selling at a market price with many potential purchasers.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:10 am to CommoDawg
quote:
For Some Reason, Cory Booker and 12 Other Dems Helped Kill a Bill That Would Lower Drug Prices
Really? "For some reason"? For the love of Christmas, I wonder if we can possibly fathom what that reason might be?
quote:
Between 2010 and 2016, a handful of the Democratic senators who voted “nay” were amongst the top Senate recipients funded by pharmaceutical companies: Sen. Booker received $267,338; Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) received $254,649; Robert Casey (D-PA) received $250,730; Michael Bennet (D-CO) received $222,000.
Well, I am just flabbergasted. Flabbergasted, I tell you!
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:16 am to CommoDawg
quote:
39 Republicans and 13 Democrats vote down amendment that would allow for cheaper drugs
FIFY
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:16 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Obviously, that will be an entirely different scenario, and yes, prices are extremely elastic. I am talking about the development, sale, and distribution of the initial IP through its 15 year lifetime.
But even with a branded product, it usually faces competition. And a branded nasal steroid is useless as there are OTC products. With other branded drugs in a therapeutic class, there is generic competition in the disease state if not the therapeutic state. And then throw in the tiers on your PBM and demand is still very receptive to price.
Example: the Dr writes a prescription for Veramyst, a nasal steroid. Patient takes prescription to his pharmacy. Pharmacy says, "This drug will cost you $130. There are some over there on the shelf that are $20." The patient does what?
Oddly enough, Glaxo has coupons for Veramyst that they will text to your phone that takes up to 70% off the price. Is their demand subject to price?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News