Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 14 2020, @02:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the states'-rights-eh-eh? dept.

California considers selling its own generic prescription drugs:

California could become the first state to introduce its own brand of generic prescription drugs in an effort to drag down stratospheric healthcare costs. The plan for state-branded drugs is part of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal, which he is expected to unveil Friday, January 10.

"A trip to the doctor's office, pharmacy or hospital shouldn't cost a month's pay," Newsom said in a statement. "The cost of healthcare is just too damn high, and California is fighting back." A plan for California to sell its own drugs would "take the power out of the hands of greedy pharmaceutical companies," Newsom said, according to the Associated Press.

Under the plan, the state would contract with one or more generic drug companies, which would manufacture select prescription drugs under a state-owned label, according to an overview of the plan reported by the Los Angeles Times. Those state generics would presumably be offered to Californians at a lower price than current generics, which could spark more competitive pricing in the market overall.

So far, much of the plan's details are unclear, though, including which drugs might be sold and how much money they could save residents and the state.

The conceptual plan so far has garnered both praise and skepticism from health industry experts.

Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access California, told the Associated Press that "Consumers would directly benefit if California contracted on its own to manufacture much-needed generic medications like insulin—a drug that has been around for a century yet the price has gone up over tenfold in the last few decades."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:44AM (5 children)

    by slinches (5049) on Wednesday January 15 2020, @01:44AM (#943392)

    What do you call "bulk buying by the government" besides a subsidy?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:25AM (4 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:25AM (#943411) Journal
    If the government is regulating the price and buying in bulk for a lot cheaper after a competitive bid process, that is the opposite of a subsidy. Same as if you go to Bulk Barn and make a deal to buy 10 pallets worth of stuff at 90% off.
    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:36PM (3 children)

      by slinches (5049) on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:36PM (#943655)

      Have you ever been involved in any of these "auction style" procurement processes? A competitive bid system only works when there's already a functioning market. If that were the case, we wouldn't have such high drug prices in the first place. It's likely that CA will have to pay more than the current wholesale price because there's extra paperwork and overhead in dealing with government contracts.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:27PM (2 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:27PM (#943683) Journal
        Blah blah blah ... other countries manage to do it all the time. Instead of throwing up roadblocks and making excuses for why it can't work, you should be asking why it's not happening in your country. Same as single payer health care.
        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:19PM (1 child)

          by slinches (5049) on Wednesday January 15 2020, @10:19PM (#943805)

          Again, I didn't say it can't be done. I said the plan that the CA governor laid out wouldn't work as described.

          If they wanted to, CA could just mandate a maximum cost for generic drugs sold in their state, or single payer health care for that matter. The US could do things like revoke patent protection when they think drug companies are abusing that system to gouge the public. These things work to manage corporate misbehavior and wouldn't be a significant cost to the taxpayers. Why are they doing what they propose instead of the things that have been proven effective elsewhere?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:12AM (#943910)

            In addition to mandating a maximum price for generic drugs California can also mandate a maximum price for patented drugs. Legally, why not (not saying they should just that there is no legal reason why not). The company that owns the patent can still be the exclusive seller/licensor but if they want to sell to California they must sell at some price.

            Just like I can mandate a maximum price I'm willing to pay for a patented drug personally California can mandate a maximum price its willing to allow its citizens to pay for patented drugs. It won't violate the patent as the company doesn't have to sell if they don't like the price just like I don't have to buy a patented drug if I don't like the price. The company still has their exclusive federal monopoly we are just collectively bargaining and saying that we refuse to pay more than x if you want to sell to us.