626

Big Pharma claims lower prices will mean giving up miracle medications. Ignore them. (www.vox.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by fpslem@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It is a harrowing proposition: that in trying to control drug prices for 67 million Medicare patients now, we might inadvertently prevent the development of future drugs that could save lives. Implied, if not stated outright, is that we’re putting a cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s or some other intractable disease in jeopardy.

But we have good reasons to believe that the current policy won’t have such a trade-off any time soon. For one, pharma is hugely profitable, and these negotiated prices, while potentially chipping away at profit margins, should hardly entirely dampen the incentive to innovate, according to a couple of key studies of the industry. Two, if we are worried about future innovation, we should be focused on making it cheaper to develop drugs – and this is actually one area where AI is showing promise. By identifying the best candidates for possible treatments early in the research process, we could speed up development and continue to reduce costs — without losing out on tomorrow’s breakthroughs. ...

top 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] lettruthout@lemmy.world 101 points 3 weeks ago

FTFY...

Big Pharma claims lower prices will mean giving up miracle ~~medications~~ executive pay and bonuses.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago

Haha no they meant what they said.

They're not giving up their pay/bonuses.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The correct answer is neither.

Miracle drugs are almost exclusively funded, or heavily subsidized, by the public sector. Typically through NIH grants, or other public funding mechanisms through the University system.

R&D budgets for a big pharma go to things like reformulating existing brand name drugs, to prevent them going generic as they are supposed to under current law. Or other high return, reduced effort, drugs i.e. new dick pills, narcotics, etc.

Executive pay and bonuses are not going anywhere, no matter what happens with these drug prices. They will cut their company to the bone, and then collude with private equity to take them private and gut it, before they ever considered cutting down their bonuses or stock options.

[-] ____@infosec.pub 13 points 3 weeks ago

I benefit from an orphan drug, and the R&D was most definitely subsidised by the public purse.

My insurance pays a few grand a month for it.

The mfg coupon covers most of the rest, minus a copay.

This is the second iteration of the original drug. The first hasn’t meaningfully fallen in price and only the original company can manufacture and distribute the generic even under the name of competitors.

There was no breakthrough in the second iteration, and the logic to solve the “problem” they solved was straightforward. So now I pay more, for an anecdotally less effective version that addresses a risk irrelevant to me but present in the original.

There is yet a third iteration on the way.

Shock revelations:

pharma companies are greedy and will double dip against both government subsidies and patients/insurance at every opportunity.
XX Pharma didn’t pay for the original R&D, my gov did.
if one replaces Na with a/several similar elements, one still ends up with a salt, often resulting in a drug variant that “doesn’t affect blood pressure” and offers no other real benefits, nor risks.
Clinical trials for said alternative salt are broadly leas expensive than for the original. That does not result in lower prices.

Nationalise pharma research, if not the manufacturers.

Also, generics are often manufactured in countries with, shall we say, fewer controls and regulations. Know who makes those pills and where. If you can’t stomach the FDA reports on that manufacturer, find a pharmacy who will sell you something else…

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago

This is correct. We pay for R&D, they keep all the profits.

[-] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 60 points 3 weeks ago

Seems like a good reason to nationalize the industry.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 3 weeks ago

It pretty much already is. All major drug discoveries this century received at least as much public funding as private.

[-] thejoker954@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

And despite helping to foot the bill no money ends up going back to the public.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 weeks ago

And public ownership of patents for drugs discovered by public institutions is explicitly forbidden by law.

[-] habitualcynic@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

Wtf that’s so stupid

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 31 points 3 weeks ago

Assuming lower prices were mandated in the future, what is their alternative? Develop zero new medications and subsist on the current drugs they offer with soon to expire patents? I doubt their competitors will be sitting idly by waiting for their eventual demise. Their argument is so superficial.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago

I doubt their competitors will be sitting idly by waiting for their eventual demise

That's why you do M&As with your profits until there aren't any competitors left

[-] Chewget@lemm.ee 30 points 3 weeks ago

Aren't most of the RND costs paid for through government grants and donations..

[-] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago

shush! ^the ^peasants ^don't ^need ^to ^know ^that!

[-] _bcron@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

For one, pharma is hugely profitable

This is just like Uber and Lyft threatening to pull out of markets when the taxes go up a bit. The horror, they'll have slightly shittier margins and can't survive with slightly less profit

[-] Zink@programming.dev 22 points 3 weeks ago

Won’t somebody think of the jobs in their marketing departments that have bigger budgets than the R&D departments?!?

[-] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Even if they're right, that just means I won't be able to afford those "Miracle Medications" anyway...

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 19 points 3 weeks ago

Miracles don’t happen.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Penicillin was a kind of miracle. But it wasn't locked in a vault and used to extort a handful of wealthy people for every penny they were worth.

The real miracle of penicillin was in how it got such universal adoption and use in so little time.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 9 points 3 weeks ago

Science isn’t a miracle. It’s the hard work of scientists. Perhaps pharmaceutical companies should be required to operate with the same transparency as nonprofits.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

How could they possibly derive profits from drugs nearly wholly theorized and funded through government grants? Think of the shareholders and their inability to siphon your taxes into their pockets! Think about them often, especially when you pass by their offices visible through brittle glass. Let them know your feelings.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They aren't wholly theorized and funded by the government.

By far the most expensive step of drug development is the phase 3 clinical trial, the final stage before a drug can be released. The government doesn't fund those at all. Government mostly funds pre-clinical trials (ie in animals or tissue culture) which are way cheaper.

The average government grant for a biomed research proposal is nearly $600,000.

The average phase 3 clinical trial costs $20 million.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Should be a non-issue for them to fund the billions in research grants afforded to universities, then. Privatizing profits and socializing the initial investment. Just saying, I’d like a hundred extra dollars per year. Were these entities so beneficent as to avoid bankrupting people forced to use their medications, I might feel differently.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Government-funded research is typically basic science research. It results in general knowledge that is usable by anyone, ie it does not support a specific product. No pharma company will pay for something that helps competitors as much (or possibly more) than it helps them.

For example, government-funded research showed how injected mRNA could be directly absorbed and expressed by human cells in tissue culture. That remarkable discovery can be used by any pharma company to make a product. So pharma companies started developing various mRNA vaccines, and testing them in humans (Moderna, Pfizer, etc). But no pharma company would have funded the initial research that showed this was possible.

[-] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks for weighing in. Is there somewhere I can learn more about this? Big Pharma getting rich off tax payer funded research is an often repeated claim on internet forums, and I’d like to educate myself some more on this topic. Thanks!

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In general, I think "Big Pharma gets rich off taxpayer funded research" is kind of like "Ford gets rich off taxpayer funded roads" or "Apple gets rich from taxpayer funded schools". They are true in one sense, but that doesn't mean those companies would pay for those things. That's why government ends up paying for common goods.

Note that "Big Pharma gets rich off taxpayer funded research" is different from "Big Pharma charges more than necessary to cover its own research costs." You can find a pretty good analysis of those costs here.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

Without price controls only the rich will be able to afford those "miracle" cures anyway.

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

This hits the point already. Look at those weight loss drugs that help people lose weight and are needed by certain other people.

Look at all the celebrities all of a sudden on them and regular people's insurance won't cover them. The regular folks who need them have trouble getting them as a result.

[-] Boozilla@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

I wouldn't believe anything Big Pharma says.

Big Pharma is so fucking greedy we're already starting to run out of useful new antibiotics because they aren't as profitable as Big Pharma wants.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Let's not conflate the business side of pharma and the science is pharmacology. The main reason we don't have new antibiotics is mostly due to the evolutionary arms race against bacteria that quickly develop resistance typically within a year.

[-] Boozilla@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No conflation. It's both. It's because everything is privatized / sacrificed on the altar of capitalism. Yes, bacteria evolves quickly, but that doesn't explain the huge gap in development efforts. It's a complication, definitely. But, I reject the idea that this is the primary reason. More like an excuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8237369/

https://www.reactgroup.org/toolbox/understand/how-did-we-end-up-here/few-antibiotics-under-development/

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 12 points 3 weeks ago

The idea that better drugs will be discovered by AI is laughable, though. It can help the search, but it can't predict the trial outcomes well. The system is too complex, and we don't have the data.

[-] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

AI will cut down the time it takes, which is still helpful.

[-] PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Trust me bro. One time I saw an ai claim that it's possible to make lsd out of sodium chloride and distilled water. It was ai generated so it must be true.

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Until they can cure cancer they have no leverage

[-] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

Giving up miracle medications from them

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Right. Because a miracle medication wouldn't make a ton of money anyway what with it being a fucking miracle medication.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

~~Miracle~~ massively profitable medicine.

[-] elrik@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

How many people already suffer today or die early because of inadequate care and lack of affordable medications?

Fuck their hypothetical diminished future profits and solve today's real problems that will save lives and increase quality of life.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

half of budgets for pharma companies is spent on marketing. Discourage that and they will be forced to spend more on R&D.

You can pass a law to ban pharma commercials on the grounds that prescriptions should be prescribed by doctors. You could also simply tax marketing spending as though it were the same as profits, applying corporate taxes to marketing spending.

[-] exanime@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Wolves explain why eating sheep is actually good for the sheep. If elves are forced to become vegetarians, the sheep will suffer more...

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Big pharma is full of shit. And the fact that they are admitting that the only way they'll look for a "miracle drug" to extort sick people's money by grossly overcharging is if they can extort sick people's money on current drugs by grossly overcharging is fucking disgusting. They all should be hung.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 3 weeks ago

Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Vox:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368538/medicare-drug-prices-pharma-negotiations-innovation

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024

626 points (99.4% liked)

News

22882 readers

3879 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world