SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Thursday October 15 2015, @01:03PM
from the money-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
from the money-makes-the-world-go-round dept.
U.S. prices for the world's 20 top-selling medicines are, on average, three times higher than in Britain, according to an analysis carried out for Reuters.
The finding underscores a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases and follows demands for lower drug costs in America from industry critics such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The 20 medicines, which together accounted for 15 percent of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies including AbbVie (ABBV.N), AstraZeneca (AZN.L), Merck (MRK.N), Pfizer (PFE.N) and Roche (ROG.VX).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Transatlantic Divide: How U.S. Pays Three Times More for Drugs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 42 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
-- Mark Twain
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday October 15 2015, @01:09PM
Don't worry, once our tory government have finished ripping the guts out of the NHS and selling off the carcass, we too will have a glorious insurance-driven healthcare denial system just like our cousins across the pond, and soon after that our medicines will cost as much as yours.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:17PM
Be thankful you don't have Obamacare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @05:53PM
Why?
(Score: 3, Touché) by davester666 on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:15PM
Because private enterprise is always better, unless there are losses involved, in which case it is better for the government to spread those losses amongst all the taxpayers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Thursday October 15 2015, @05:32PM
Amen. The NHS is, in terms of cost per patient, actually not that inefficient. Can't remember who did the study but I don't think it was anyone who would gain from saying that.
Anecdotal evidence: The place I work for is in colossal debt (PFI contract for 2 new buildings) and is now in the process of getting rid of staff and facilities (various surgical departments are being shunted elsewhere in the region under a local "devolution" deal (which looks to me like a huge bottle of poison with "lemonade" written on it to fool the MBAs in management)). A ward meant for recovering surgical patients was closed and now we're sending ~35% of patients home on the day of surgery *without having their operation* because there's no bloody bed to put them in to recover.
Oh, and we need to increase throughput to ensure we don't get fined for making people wait too long for their surgery.
Yes, that is with less staff. And less facilities. And the staff who are there are being paid less.
The operating theatres have only ever been staffed fully by having a bunch of them on overtime. Now there's a ban on overtime, the theatres aren't fully staffed, which means we can treat even *less* patients. Oh, and I found out earlier this week that the cost of all this so far purely in terms of staffing (i.e. not including fines, etc) was over half a million quid. Which is pretty impressive waste for four weeks.
You can see where this leads. Still, no doubt our Head Honcho will have himself a nice cushy government job by the time it hits the fan.
Well over half of Foundation Trusts (these are hospitals who have more control over their budget than non-FTs) are in debt, most of that PFI-related. Part of the problem is incompetence/corruption at some very high levels, part of it is the way every single contractor sees the public sector as a bottomless pit of money (or one that they can drain and then move on, partially sated).
While the Tories are responsible for some of our current woes, Labour were responsible for the rest; ISTR that this PFI nonsense was their doing, a means of transferring vast amounts money from the taxpayer to private enterprise. They have or will all bend us over a barrel, but at least we get a choice of which colour it is.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 15 2015, @11:53PM
But weren't you previously among those berating the US for not having a National Health Insurance program?
It seems like every other socialist country was down on the US for this, while simultaneously bitching about their own health care.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Dogeball on Friday October 16 2015, @08:55AM
Us Brits are currently bitching about our non-socialist government completely fucking up a previously working socialist establishment.
FWIW, even in it's current state of under-funding, mismanagement and disrepair, the NHS kicks the shit out of any private insurance-based system I've had the misfortune of experiencing. I shattered my femur as a student and am not subsequently in debt. My dad-in-law went in for a stent one day and came out the next with a quadruple heart-bypass. Also not in debt. No premiums to pay.
Average-to-high earners pay in more than they would in a US-style system, but are not afraid to use the system (i.e. put off seeing the doctor until it's too late) as it has no impact on their finances if they do or don't.
Final point: the government has a direct interest in both encouraging drug research and not getting scammed by rogue pharmaceutical companies, so big pharma is happy and the little guy doesn't suffer.
This is what we're losing; hence the bitching.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 16 2015, @09:11AM
The NHS does wonderful things on a daily basis more efficiently than the US system, and has done so for half a century. It continues to do so even now despite all the problems listed above, but we are heading in your direction due to pressure from outside forces.
The current problems with the NHS listed by GP are all caused by various government attempts to milk and/ or cripple the NHS. There are plenty of people in government who would love to see the NHS fail, so they can point to it and say "look, it's not working, we should privatise everything." That's their cue to sell off the NHS brick by brick and pocket the proceeds.* They've been hobbling it for decades with funding cuts, ridiculous legislation and idiotic "financing" schemes designed to put hospitals in permanent debt to private companies.
In other words, when it was a properly socialist system, it was fine. It only goes wrong when the private interests get their grubby mitts on it via their cronies in gov.
GP rightly pointed out that both our right-wing and ostensibly left-wing parties have been responsible for these abuses. The right wing (tories) are generally worse though.
*That's exactly what they did with our railways (now laughably expensive and unreliable) and our telecoms (Now we are stuck with an abusive quasi-monopoly with a facade of choice) and most recently our postal service (not had time to go completely to shit yet, but it will.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday October 15 2015, @01:32PM
Governments do have an important role in regulation. For example, without drug patents, there would be little incentive for research.
However, governments can also go too far. Prohibiting parallel imports, restricting generics, creating huge barriers to entry for companies that might otherwise start manufacturing drugs. All bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists.
Finally, Obamacare. While I'm not familiar with the details (not being in the US), my understanding is that people pay premiums not only for themselves, but that their premiums subsidize the indigent. One may want government to pay for healthcare for the poor, but doing so by artificially raising health care premiums for everyone else - is that really the right way? Secondly, the way Obamacare is structured, for many people it is cheaper to stay out of the system and pay the tax penalty - hence reducing the number of people actually paying those high premiums. All in all, a pretty poor attempt at creating socialized medicine, at least, that's what it looks like.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:05PM
One may want government to pay for healthcare for the poor, but doing so by artificially raising health care premiums for everyone else
It is just a tax. They even took it to the supreme court and argued it that way. For any gov type of items all of its income is usually derived from taxes. Just no one in the gov wants to admit that. They want to pretend somehow they can make money. They can print cash. But doing that basically just taxes everyone who has cash already.
What you are seeing in the US is what is commonly called regulatory capture. Basically the insurance companies realized eventually the gov is going to run it. As it is probably the best way to handle it. So they got themselves promoted to be the middle man. One company I worked for a few years ago had a 'Cadillac' plan. It was something like 20 dollar copay for pretty much anything. Last I heard they were a 70/30 thinking of going 60/40. Obamacare was going to gut the plan anyway and tax it for being too good.
I am not sure why everyone was cheering about obamacare. The people who really need it cant really afford it anyway no matter what you do. Read an article yesterday about nearly 1 million people in Florida that are not covered (that is 1 out of 50 states). Those who can will pay the premium but get ripped off at every interaction. Some people were confused by adding money to the system and the prices went up. Adding money to a system does not make prices go down. Adding in more supply does that and that only works if the thing being supplied is not a fungible product. Fungible products usually already have the margin squeezed out of them. You may see some fluctuation for the first 2-3 years as the system stabilizes around the new rules (both to the better and the worse). All the rules have not kicked in yet either. They honestly did not know what they were doing when they passed it. Which was more scary. Watch them do the same thing with that trade agreement. Give it a glance put a rubber stamp on it and pat themselves on the back about how good they are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:58PM
fwiw, I was out of work for over 9 months (I may have a lead on a job now, finally!) - and I ended up in calif's 'poor people health insurance' program where there is zero deductable and zero co-pay. I figured it would be really bad but - surprise - a medication that I used to have to pay $20 copay for was FREE with this plan! shocked the hell out of me when I showed the pharmacist my new card and she said that this plan covered the med in full and my amount was $0.00. you could have knocked me over with a feather. even when I worked for top-name bay area companies, I NEVER had a zero co-pay. working at big places like Sun and SGI and cisco - still I never had a zero co-pay. with poor folks insurance (medi-CAL, I think) I got my med covered fully.
I wish I knew that this was THAT good; I would have canceled my COBRA plan that I was paying THRU THE NOSE for and getting LESS value for during my unemployment period. what a scam! cobra was the scam, really; and the free HC program turned out to be fairly good, at least in this instance.
what else has obamacare done that is good? well, I was on a list of those who would be denied coverage due to 'pre-existing' blah blah blah. with the new deal, though, they cannot refuse me and I'll always be able to get SOME coverage.
and while insurance (especially cobra) rates went WAY up over the last 2 years, you cannot blame that on obama; the insurance companies were happy to use him as an excuse to bilk us. classic game - never let an opportunity go that you didn't take advantage of. and if you guys didn't remember, HC costs have gone up every single year and they often jump in big steps with seemingly no reason for it.
the US has not controlled HC costs and have not 'read the riot act' to the HC companies. the only thing really is that coverage is not mandatory for everyone (good!) and if you can't afford coverage, you get it for free, at least in my state I did.
can we do better? of course! but you have to start somewhere. if the R's had their way, we'd keep the same old system and the prices would STILL go up each year, but people like me would not be able to get insurance if they were not covered by a group plan. so, there was at least THAT level of compassion added to this new law. before that, you could die due to being denied even the simplest HC plan. it was cruel and very unchristian like (yes, a slam to the R's who consider themselves the party-of-jesus).
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 15 2015, @03:37PM
the US has not controlled HC costs and have not 'read the riot act' to the HC companies.
But... but... but how would those corporations reap massive profits if they actually controlled costs?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:24PM
Did you read the small print on your "free healthcare"? If you buy a house and/or save money to give to your kids when you kick the bucket, Medi-Cal will take the full cost of your medical bills out of what you had saved for your kids. I was forced into the same bracket, no choice in the matter, and I couldn't even buy a healthcare plan outside of CoveredCa. It all goes through the states exchange, like it or not.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @05:21PM
If your house is paid off, deed it to your kid before you kick the bucket, would cost you like $100 in most jurisdictions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @05:48PM
That's what I'll end up doing, but many people didn't know about their recovery clause. I used to be able to afford healthcare insurance before Obamacare, after it started prices tripled AND I was now in the BS Medi-Cal bracket with no way out.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 16 2015, @12:03AM
I ended up in calif's 'poor people health insurance' program where there is zero deductable and zero co-pay. I figured it would be really bad but - surprise
Having attained the age necessary to obtain service from the system I've paid into my entire working life (Medicare), and having additional insurance coverage through my retirement package from a previous employer, I too pay nothing for medication (or open heart surgery, as I recently found out).
So, I quite frankly, I don't even know what the medications cost these days.
Pre-Medicaid I did have co-pay, but it was a pittance.
You can't get that kind of coverage any more. The companies have all gone Obamacare, and you pay through the nose.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday October 16 2015, @01:27AM
fwiw, I was out of work for over 9 months (I may have a lead on a job now, finally!) - and I ended up in calif's 'poor people health insurance'
What civilised countries do here is pay for health care for everyone from general taxation.
What that meant for me is that when I was diagnosed with diverticulitis at the age of about 40 I had to wait something like 6 weeks for a surgical appointment to get a bowel resection (which cured the problem completely).
This cost me nothing at all (up front, I had been paying tax for 23 years at the time) and was done in a public hospital.
If health care is paid for out of the general fund, rather than some sort of special fund like "national insurance" or whatever, it's a lot harder for politicians to mess with the funding, as the UK is finding out right now.
Oh, New Zealand by the way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:17PM
For example, without drug patents, there would be little incentive for research.
There is zero credible and rigorous scientific evidence to support that claim, and the burden of proof is on those who wish to create or keep laws.
Meanwhile, patents violate private property rights (can't use your own resources to carry out this set of steps to get this result) and prevent competition from bringing down prices. It might be possible to have governments do the drug research instead of corporate thugs with a profit motive.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:21PM
People without insurance simply wait until whatever their problem is becomes an emergency and then go to the ER. The ER must treat everyone, even if they know they will never see a dime from them. So they skip out on the bill, guess who gets to pay it? Right, everyone else.
Now consider that ER visits are 10x more expensive than a regular hospital visit and those are 10x more expensive then getting it detected and treated early at a regular doctor's visit.
When I tell people this, the response is usually "well then the ER is charging too much". Regardless if they are or are not charging too much, detecting things early is the only sure way to cut costs in the long run.
The ACA might be set up wrong due to political reasons, but its goal is to get everyone healthcare; not some socialist conspiracy to make republicans pay a bit more.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 15 2015, @03:33PM
The ACA might be set up wrong due to political reasons, but its goal is to get everyone healthcare; not some socialist conspiracy to make republicans pay a bit more.
Well, yes and no. It is a scheme for healthier and richer people to pay more into health care than sicker and poorer people, and that is indeed seen as socialism by the right wing folks. I for one don't have a problem with the concept though, even as someone who's fairly high up on the income scale and healthy: When a lot of people around me are sick, the chance that I get sick or injured due to a sick person screwing up goes up, so even purely from self-interest I have good reason to want other people to be healthy.
There are a couple of factors intended to keep the costs of insurance in check:
1. Insurance companies are required to limit their overhead and profit to 15% of premiums. Now, in a single-payer-single-provider system like NHS, most of that 15% of the cost goes away because the NHS isn't trying to make a profit nor has large departments of people whose job it is to deny care to people or sell health insurance, but in the pre-ACA US that percentage was higher than 15%, not lower. This fact was one of the major reasons
2. Because on the exchanges the insurers are directly competing with each other essentially on price, they are motivated to keep their premiums as low as they can in order to collect more customers.
The current numbers strongly suggest that the ACA actually ended up doing better than expected at both controlling costs (the costs are still going up, but nowhere near as fast as before) and getting more people able to get health care. Anecdotally, I had a much easier time getting insurance under the ACA than before it because I no longer needed to prove to any potential insurer that I wasn't sick and wasn't likely to get sick.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:09PM
That's my situation right now. Had a kidney stone last year, and made 3 visits to emergency. Though I am on Obamacare, I was still charged outrageous amounts. The so called Bronze HMO plan I am on has not reduced the charges to sane levels. I am being asked to pay about $5000. Interesting how that nudges up against the $6000 deductible my insurance plan has, wouldn't you say? All the hospital did was a CT scan, a few tests, and of course pain relief. They did not remove the kidney stone, and although that was the correct decision, the price they charged is more than enough to pay for removal. I got the hospital to send me an itemized bill, and went over the numbers. If I was being charged at Medicare levels, I should owe less than $500.
I wasted many hours talking to insurance. Sometimes their reps would chirp that the good news was I'd almost met my deductible! I felt an urge to throttle them. Their covered amounts were weird, with wildly different amounts for identical items. They admitted the prices didn't make sense, agreed to change them, and then did not. I have appealed, internally, and been denied. So, now what? I want my time back!
I definitely understand skipping out on the bill. It seems the only way to not spend so much time arguing and appealing that you might as well have just paid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @05:59PM
In my part of the country, an ER visit entails receiving the bare minimum necessary to address your problem and then they tell you to "go see a doctor".
It doesn't make sense that they'd write a bill for $10k to the pubic after Jon Doe goes in for chest pain, gets literally 1 minute with the doctor who offers to provide some vicodin (and no testing), and then gets told to go see their doctor since they're not dead yet. That happened to my dad, it's a real story. He's not paying that bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @06:58PM
They're for-profit companies, of course it makes sense. All they care about is reaping more profits, not saving lives or taking care of people. Any excuse to pocket more cash, such as "providing life-saving care" (even if nothing was actually done) will be utilized to its fullest extent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:00PM
How is "providing healthcare to poor people" NOT a socialist conspiracy?
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday October 16 2015, @05:53PM
It is socialist... it is not a conspiracy.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:22PM
Also, if you become unemployed next week and then get sick. What, should you just roll over and die? Fuck that.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:26PM
What, should you just roll over and die?
It seems like that's the "Libertarian/Tea Party" plan. If you can't afford health care, you can't afford to live.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 15 2015, @09:28PM
That's certainly how then-Congressman Alan Grayson described it [youtube.com]. And it's certainly how people in this debate audience in 2011 [youtube.com] felt about it (which libertarian-leaning candidate Ron Paul definitely did not deny was his basic opinion on the matter).
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:17PM
Prices in the only free market are higher than government controlled prices. This is not news, this is how the world pays for drug research, it outsourced it all to the Americans. But as we here in the U.S. also slide into Socialism there won't be anyone left to pay the ever increasing costs of research and development. The End.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:42PM
The US does not have a free market for health care, silly. It didn't before Obamacare, and it surely doesn't with Obamacare.
Switzerland, where I live, used to have a pretty free market. About 15 years ago they put in a milder version of what the US now has. My health insurance costs immediately doubled, and have gone up around 5% every year since. That's what the US is now seeing, only apparently even more extreme.
It's well-meaning, but make something 'free' and people will abuse it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:57PM
You might be interpreting free market differently than I do, but surely the US market for now is still pretty free. Allow me to illustrate.
Valeant is a Canadian-based drug company that, like most other pharmaceutical companies, offers financial assistance to poor patients who can ill afford their drugs.
This kind of direct financial assistance to patients is, however, not allowed under Medicare/Medicaid. To work around that, Valeant (and other companies) donate money to independent foundations, who then provide assistance to those patients. On October 15, Valeant found itself on the receiving end of subpoenas issued by the US attorney's offices of Manhattan and Massachusetts.
The company itself stated that it are those very assistance programs which are chiefly under investigation. Noteworthy though is that the subpoenas require details about Valeant's pricing policies and the distribution of its drugs. This is interesting, as Valeant is also known* as being involved in buy-and-raise practices: buying up an old drug, than raising the price.
Two examples, for this year alone, are the buying up of two life-saving heart drugs (Nitropress, Isuprel) -- whose prices subsequently increased with 525 and 212 percent respectively. In defense of the company, it must be said that those price increases are rather modest -- in comparison to competitors in the market**.
When Turing Pharmaceuticals ("developing and commercializing innovative treatments") acquired the rights to Daraprim in August this year -- a drug often given to cancer and Aids patients -- it jacked up its price 55-fold overnight, from $13.50 to $750 a pill.
It took an angry tweet from a certain Democratic presidential candidate for Turing to jack down the price again to -- if a recent press release [turingpharma.com] is to be believed -- 10 dollar a prescription. Like Valeant, Turing too now find itself under investigation [nytimes.com] by New York's attorney general.
It is a bit of a shame, ofcourse, for the rest of the biotech and pharmaceuticals industry -- where shares went down together with the bad news for both companies: odd, no?
*Valeant shares dive after pricing probe, Financial Times, Oct 15
**Big Pharma thinks twice about jacking up prices, Financial Times, Oct 8
(Score: 5, Informative) by Bobs on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:46PM
...this is how the world pays for drug research, it outsourced it all to the Americans....there won't be anyone left to pay the ever increasing costs of research and development.
Not true. The drug companies spend more on advertising than on basic research:
The authors go on to say that for every dollar pharmaceutical companies spend on "basic research," $19 goes toward promotion and marketing.
...
Lexchin, a professor at York University's School of Health Policy and Management, was the co-author of another study in 2008 that argued that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on research and development.
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html [huffingtonpost.com] And
A new study estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry's claim. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar in 2004 on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development
from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm [sciencedaily.com]
So the industry can have reduced profits and spend as much or more on R&D than it does now. They are just exploiting the US people because they can.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday October 15 2015, @03:07PM
basically, the US (people, not gov!) funds the drug companies' ADVERTISING BUDGETS.
how does that feel? we pay thru the nose and the effect is that we get to see tv commercials, print ads and all that other USELESS CRAP. but think of the tv/print folks who get to reap all that drug-advertisement money! they do deserve that income, its well earned of course (rolls eyes).
if you take the ad budget away entirely and applied it as a discount to american consumers, I bet we'd get drugs for a fraction of their 'sale price', as stated in the US.
somethings really should not be for profit. do you want fire stations to be for-profit? we already have cops that work for-profit (civil asset forfeiture and other methods where the pigs get to steal your goods and keep it). do you really think drug companies should exist in a for-profit world? and before you say so, are you 100% certain that the scientists and researchers (the real heros of the companies) would not work there unless they all made 6 figure incomes? do you think the industry would just disappear if they were told they had to break even and not make a profit? cover salaries, of course, but not make the insane profits they do now?
some people do want to work for good reasons and not to rape fellow mankind while he's down. we'd have the same number of scientists working these issues, but the diff would be that the psycho CEO's and business asswipes would not pollute this field and they'd find some other area to fuck up, leaving this one alone to serve man as it should be.
congress could 're-wire' the whole healthcare system to be non-profit and as a service, just like infrastructure is a service that we all demand (in a modern first world country). its a damned shame that they are all bought and sold and the changes won't ever be huge in the industry.
but think about how it could have been if we didn't have such powerful people trying to corrupt what should be a thing that benefits people. the real crime is the governments allowing that to happen.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @08:02PM
Sounds like a bunch of commie bullshit from a Christian-hating pinko hippie. Why do you hate America?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @09:56PM
The money is spent on marketing, not just advertising. Marketing also including educating doctors, and 'gifts' to doctors, and maybe bribes to insurance, and government officials.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 15 2015, @10:35PM
This is how a great many things are thus enhanced to improve their value to others, but not necessarily for the original target market.
This is the same as what happened to cable tv, the internet, medical insurance, the political system in the US... None of them are what they used to be, and I think we can probably agree that in my few examples, none of them are what we'd like them to be. Despite everything that has happened to improve them over time, there always has been something to diminish those advances.
I'd rather live today than 100 years ago (if I take off my rose tinted steam punk goggles for a moment) due to the benefits I receive from the advances we've had. And yet it could be so much better if shareholder value and executive board enrichment were less of a concern.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:47PM
Spot on, the National Institutes of Health says [nih.gov] that it "is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world" but do high prices for medicines really advance the US government's effort to develop them? Through its Medicare programme, doesn't it end up paying out quite a bit to private companies which market the drugs? Perhaps if there were more vertical integration, such that the government, rather than just discovering drugs, would also test, brand (very important) and manufacture them, then public health considerations might count for more, and profitability less. But I suppose that would be not just socialism but communism [soylentnews.org]. Mustn't have that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:04PM
How does one price-shop for the cheapest ambulance service to the cheapest hospital to save their life when they're unconscious having a heart attack? You'll be picked up in whatever ambulance service is in the area and taken to the nearest hospital and you have no say in the matter. Healthcare is about as far away from a free market as you can get, especially in the US where prices for all services are literally made up on the spot [cbsnews.com] with no rhyme or reason to the prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 16 2015, @03:34AM
I pay $78 a year to the ambulance service. They will pick me up anywhere in Au and drive or fly me where-ever it is medically necessary to go.
The bill will be $0.00 regardless of whether it is patient transport, paramedic, MICA, or Helicopter, Ambulance.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 15 2015, @11:43PM
This is not news, this is how the world pays for drug research, it outsourced it all to the Americans.
Further, it is how the world pays for drug treatment in the second and third world. US Drugs in US Packaging, shipped from the US, at some tiny fraction of the price your drug store chain can order it in bulk.
Its not JUST that the US pays for research (some of that goes on in the EU as well), we pay for the day to day health care in indigent nations.
Further, we as a society are not all together against that situation, and we even send grant money to countries to buy drugs from us at cut rate prices, or we ship medicine directly. All done with tax dollars, which most Americans don't begrudge.
And because so much of the drugs used in the US are paid for by insurance (of one kind or another) we don't even see these price differences until we travel overseas and even then all we see is the non-prescription stuff.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 15 2015, @03:04PM
The smartest economics PhD student I knew at the Chicago School of Economics as an undergrad told me he was going to work on the economics of national healthcare (this was during the dawn of the Clinton presidency). Years later I returned to Chicago for grad school and ran into him during a symposium. I had since lived in Europe and Japan and come to love national healthcare; I asked him how it was going and expected him to beam and talk about how exciting it was. He shook his head sadly and said hell would freeze over before the US got real national healthcare. 17 years later I look at Obamacare and realize how right he was.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pinchy on Thursday October 15 2015, @10:26PM
People who are in the healthcare business are going to fight it tooth and nail. All these expensive hospital bills lines someones pocket. Everyone from nurses/doctors/staff on up to pharmacy. They dont want the gravy train spoiled.