SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956_
Leading drug companies including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis and Mylan conspired to inflate the prices of generic drugs by as much as 1,000 percent, according to a far-reaching lawsuit filed on Friday by 44 states.
The industrywide scheme affected the prices of more than 100 generic drugs, according to the complaint, including lamivudine-zidovudine, which treats H.I.V.; budesonide, an asthma medication; fenofibrate, which treats high cholesterol; amphetamine-dextroamphetamine for A.D.H.D.; oral antibiotics; blood thinners; cancer drugs; contraceptives; and antidepressants.
"We all know that prescription drugs can be expensive," Gurbir S. Grewal, the New Jersey attorney general, said in a statement. "Now we know that high drug prices have been driven in part by an illegal conspiracy among generic drug companies to inflate their prices."
In court documents, the state prosecutors lay out a brazen price-fixing scheme involving more than a dozen generic drug companies and just as many executives responsible for sales, marketing and pricing. The complaint alleges that the conspirators knew their efforts to thwart competition were illegal and that they therefore avoided written records by coordinating instead at industry meals, parties, golf outings and other networking events.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13 2019, @02:00PM (5 children)
I don't think you understand how qualities of sets work. One subset being correct does not make the whole thing correct. For example a heroin addict needs heroin or faces a severe health threats too.
And insulin is fine for what it is, odd that progress on diabetes treatment hasn't improved much since the 1930s though isn't it? Somehow they just keep finding ways to make insulin more expensive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday May 13 2019, @05:08PM (4 children)
But insulin *is* the specific treatment. If you want to claim there's been regulatory capture, I'll 100% agree with you, but if you want the claim it should be deregulated, I'll 97% disagree with you. What is really needed is strong action to prevent and remove regulatory capture, and not only in the drug market.
I believe that nobody who has ever worked as a manager or supervisor in a field should be allowed on the regulatory commission, and that anyone who has ever served on a regulatory commission should be legally forbidden in strongest terms from ever in accepting ANY emolument in ANY form from an industry that they have regulated. This includes stocks, though I would exclude index funds that they are not involved in the management of. And I don't care whether they held the stock before getting on the regulatory commission, they should still be forbidden from accepting payments from it...including by selling it. They should sell it *before* they sit on the commission.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:33AM (3 children)
Deregulation is an effective way to get that.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 15 2019, @04:02AM (2 children)
Unfortunately, the bad effects of deregulation are often worse than the bad effects of regulatory capture.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:18AM (1 child)
And they often aren't. How successful deregulation is depends in large part on what isn't deregulated. Point is though that that if you aren't regulating in a particular way, then you can't have regulatory capture of that particular way.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:03PM
It's always tricky drawing conclusions from history, as more than one thing has always changed, but it is my impression that regulations tend to inhibit new competitors, even if unbiased. OTOH, they often also act to prevent the worst abuses. And large companies also act to inhibit new competitors in the absence of regulations, often quite a lot more abusively. There are also other trade-offs, but to me it seems that if you remove regulatory capture the balance would swing strongly in favor of industries being regulated sufficiently strongly to prevent socially damaging abuses.
Unfortunately, there's another factor, which is that those holding power tend to act to increase the power they hold, and those most desirous of power will strive most strongly to attain it. This would also need to be ameliorated. I would suggest, in addition to the measures I proposed to avoid regulatory capture that there be a pool of qualified candidates, and that members of the regulatory body be selected from that by lot.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.