Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

[CGVT]

*yawn*

[Dr. Strangelove]

Supreme Court opens up sports betting to the entire country

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-sports-betting-across-country-n868956

[Jeff Buchanan]

Yeah, I wonder if they have the leverage you think they do. I mean, it makes sense to leverage down prices of patented drugs with bundled purchases of non-patented, but I'd presume the Govt goes generic on the off-patent drugs (or the name drugs off patent are already cheap). So, you're still dealing with on-patent drugs and there isn't any competition. So, they MIGHT not have the leverage you think. I honestly don't know.

Total healthcare spending on prescription drugs for Medicare and Medicaid accounts for $1 out of every $6 in pharmacy spending. It is by far the biggest part of overall spending for prescription drugs. The biggest culprit? Gillead's Harvoni - a medication for Hepatitis C. In the negotiations involving the evolution of the Trump Plan, it's reported that Big Pharma acceded to some portions of the plan to preserve the status of how drug pricing is set for Medicare beneficiaries. No surprise there.

https://www.kff.org/infographic/10-essential-facts-about-medicare-and-prescription-drug-spending/

I think you are generally correct, talent, in that the costs to consumers for a drug and the price manufacturers set for one is a process undertaken within a complex system that tends to mitigate the likelihood that market forces (e.g., manufactures competing with each other for the government's business) come into play.

However, Big Pharma spent (depending on how it is counted) billions on lobbying Congress after Trump, with an avowed campaign pledge to roll back prescription drug costs, was elected President. The focus of this lobbying was on insuring that the system currently in place to allow manufacturers to set drug prices - patent protection up to 12 years = monopoly prices set as high as the manufacturer wants and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) exerting inappropriate control over the supply chain/drug availability - stayed in place.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/us-pharma-lobbying-spend-surged-25-4m-2017/

The President's announcement on Friday where he outlined, in vague detail, his plan to bring down drug prices, set shares of pharmacy manufacturers soaring, suggesting the lobbyists had prevailed in influencing the Trump administration's drug plan in favor of big pharma. So, as much as it would seem that passing laws that require negotiating drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries would lower costs, that's not going to happen.

For significant change in the drug cost to consumers and pricing process for manufacturers to occur the current system of doing this has to be unwound. That is not likely to occur with the President's plan it seems, i.e., Congress and the President are going to predictably fail in their roll of bringing the world's most costly healthcare system, some of that due to drug costs, under control.

On a more positive note, there are signs that companies, tired of paying exorbitant drug prices for employees on their insurance plans .....

........ are backing away from PBMs. Last year, 20 corporations?including American Express, Macy?s, Coca-Cola, IBM, Caterpillar, Shell Oil, and Verizon?formed the Health Transformation Alliance. Their goal is to make prescriptions more affordable for their employees by rewriting PBM contracts to eliminate the drug price mark-ups. The PBMs will receive administrative fees only.

If you read the link above, you will have seen the source for the quote above.

My view is that this is a good example of bringing about change without relying on that change being brought about by dysfunctional governments at all levels, this dysfunction is a result of the influence of politics as usual.

[Kapture1]

wouldn't the 5 out of 6 total dollars spent be by far the biggest portion of pharmacy spending? not the 1 out of 6?


I do get what you mean, it just sounded weird.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Single item, Jon. The other $5 is spread out over a bunch of other line items. I think there's a chart at one of the links. The 1/6 thing demonstrates why big pharma wants the status quo for Medicare beneficiaries. Its a money pot.

[Whitley]

Here is a question that should be asked. Why, for example, are the same drugs available in Canada (and elsewhere) are so much lower in those places than in the US?

What are these countries doing to have lower drug prices? Can it be done here and if so what prevents this country from doing it?

My guess $$$$$$$$$

[Da Geezer]

good articles Jeff, thanks.

Whitney: My understanding is that Big Pharma in the US has to bear the costs of developing new drugs, and very few new drugs are invented in other countries. I wonder why someone doesn't buy drugs in Canada and ship them to the US in bulk? Probably government rules against that too. When government and business get in bed together, $$$$$$ is the result as you say.

Talent explained about drug patents some months ago. I wonder what would happen if the length of time for patents on new drugs were expanded to, say, 25 years in exchange for lowering margins of profits on new drugs. Given how they buy up generic producers and litigate, maybe it would be better for them to make their profit from the drug over a longer time, like you extend the payoff period on a mortgage in order to lower the payment. Just a thought.

[Ghengis Jon]

This report is 18 months old from the Senate. It offers some insight, but I'd like Jeff's take on this as someone on the front line, so to speak.

https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Drug%20Pricing%20Report.pdf

[Kapture1]

Here is a question that should be asked. Why, for example, are the same drugs available in Canada (and elsewhere) are so much lower in those places than in the US?

What are these countries doing to have lower drug prices? Can it be done here and if so what prevents this country from doing it?

My guess $$$$$$$$$

the United States developes most of the drugs in the world. There are numbers out there on the cost of drugs that never make it to market, and they are staggering.

2.6 billion to bring a new drug to market. and most never make it to market yet have hundreds of millions in R&D costs.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump has a development project going on in Indonesia which includes plans for hotels, a golf course, and an amusement park.

Chinese govt-backed companies just put up $500M to bankroll the project, half of its anticipated cost.

More and more people are saying that they can't believe how much swamp has drained!

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/05/11/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-on-chinas-belt-and-road-1526055777.html

[crashcourse]

QUOTE=Ghengis Jon;1178821]This report is 18 months old from the Senate. It offers some insight, but I'd like Jeff's take on this as someone on the front line, so to speak.

https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Drug%20Pricing%20Report.pdf[/QUOTE]

that's good stuff

exactly what our legislature should be doing

should be a lot more publicized

[Kapture1]

his sons must definitely not attempt to turn a profit while he is in office. The Trump Org must sit dormit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

his sons must definitely not attempt to turn a profit while he is in office. The Trump Org must sit dormit.

Trump has no current day-to-day control over the Org but he's fully informed on everything the Trump Org is working on and he will take total control back once he leaves office.

If Hillary had been elected and had refused to divorce entirely from the Clinton Foundation and said that Chelsea running it would solve all conflicts of interest..yeah I'm sure you would have been ok with that.

They made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm, fer Gawd's sake!

[Kapture1]

If Hillary had been elected and had refused to divorce entirely from the Clinton Foundation and said that Chelsea running it would solve all conflicts of interest..yeah I'm sure you would have been ok with that.

I guess we will never know.