• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sanders proposes "Fair Drug Price" Act to combat Pharma monopolies

I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to propose a new rule Monday that would require pharmaceutical companies to charge fair prices for drugs developed with taxpayer-backed research, he told HuffPosjoit.

The rule, introduced as an amendment to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, would force federal agencies and federally funded nonprofits, such as research universities, to secure a reasonable pricing agreement from a manufacturer before granting it exclusive rights to make drugs, vaccines or other health care products.

The bill is Sanders’ latest attempt to stop the Department of Defense from awarding drugmaker Sanofi Pasteur an exclusive license to produce a Zika vaccine developed over the past year by the U.S. Army. The mosquito-borne virus is sexually transmitted and causes devastating birth defects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 181 cases in U.S. states this year alone, with another 532 reported in U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“The days of allowing Sanofi and other drug makers to gouge American consumers after taking billions in taxpayer money must end,” Sanders told HuffPost. “That is why I am introducing legislation to demand fairer, lower prices for the Zika vaccine and for every drug developed with government resources. This is a fight that we cannot afford to lose.”

The Army granted Sanofi $43 million to conduct a second phase of trials on the vaccine, and, if successful, promised another $130 million to conduct a third phase.

Yet the French pharmaceutical giant has refused to agree to sell the drug back to taxpayers at a fair price, despite demanding a patent that would prevent other drugmakers from competing to manufacture the vaccine at a lower cost. (Sanofi denied rejecting the Army’s request in a series of letters to senators this month.)

“That is simply unacceptable,” Sanders said of the company’s refusal. “Sanofi and the rest of the pharmaceutical industry cannot be allowed to make huge profits on the backs of working class Americans, many of whom cannot afford the medication they are prescribed.”
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-drug-prices_us_597f4546e4b0da64e87aaebf

Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Inuhanyou said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-drug-prices_us_597f4546e4b0da64e87aaebf

Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
Click to expand...
The detail to worry about that comes for mind is Orphan Drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Companies are given extra incentives to research the drugs (since the research isn't really cost-effective normally given the small # of people who'd benefit) and it would not be a good thing to have this attempt at curtailing drug prices accidentally hit it.

Though in this case, I don't expect this to get anywhere near the point that it matters anyway.
 
T

The Wart

Member
I'm generally sympathetic to the notion that drug development is risky and costly as hell, and so pharmaceutical monopolies are preferable to greatly reduced drug development overall.

But if the Govt is paying such a large portion of the costs of R&D and clinical trials, then yeah, wtf? That's a straight up government handout.

Edit: having said that, I don't particularly trust the HuffPo to accurately describe the nuances of the situation.
 
Rei no Otaku

Rei no Otaku

Member
Inuhanyou said:
Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Ambient80 said:
Republicans: ”Hold my beer."
Click to expand...

I did say reasonably after all. And of course many of the Dems will find an excuse as well.

kirblar said:
The detail to worry about that comes for mind is Orphan Drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Companies are given extra incentives to research the drugs (since the research isn't really cost-effective normally given the small # of people who'd benefit) and it would not be a good thing to have this attempt at curtailing drug prices accidentally hit it.

Though in this case, I don't expect this to get anywhere near the point that it matters anyway.
Click to expand...

Hold on there..

If the US government created the drug(like in this case), selling it to a third party manufacturer to just hike up the costs at their own discretion makes no sense when they also want exclusive rights. Its tax payer money after all that was funding this research for this specific drug, not the pharma distributor, which is the point.

This french company in the past apparently has also been charged with unfairly charging as much as 8 times as much in America for the same drug they also distribute to the UK and France. Because they know the pharma friendly laws will allow them to do so with no large outcry.

The Wart said:
Edit: having said that, I don't particularly trust the HuffPo to accurately describe the nuances of the situation.
Click to expand...

Its annoying when the benefit of the doubt goes to the large multinational corporation faster than the individuals who are being scammed. The details are in plain sight
 
N

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I think there's a fair balance. I have no problem with the government helping fund a drug R&D as long as there's then a fair markup % agreed upon completion.

Wait, nevermind.. if the army did the fucking R&D, then state fund the whole fucking thing.
 
C

ChainedMaster

Banned
kirblar said:
The detail to worry about that comes for mind is Orphan Drugs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug

Companies are given extra incentives to research the drugs (since the research isn't really cost-effective normally given the small # of people who'd benefit) and it would not be a good thing to have this attempt at curtailing drug prices accidentally hit it.

Though in this case, I don't expect this to get anywhere near the point that it matters anyway.
Click to expand...

That doesn't apply here since it's medications whose research was funded by the government.
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Alcotholic said:
There needed to be regulations acted on Pharmaceutical companies yesterday.
Click to expand...

Not just them, but your fully right. This crony capitalist system we have is on the brink of toppling over now more than ever before, and we have Trump and the GOP to thank for giving the appetite for socialized medicine and socialized healthcare in general a shot in the arm.

Its cynical, but the more they fuck up in the opposite direction, the clearer it becomes to more and more everyday people how much structural change is actually required. And at some point the politicians won't be able to hide behind their lobbyists anymore if they want to keep their jobs.

Or atleast that's the idea. In any case, its important to keep this stuff in mind.
 
B

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
It was one of Trumps promises, then he had a meeting with some pharma lobbyists and come to the conclusion it wasnt worth it
 
M

McLovin

Member
Inuhanyou said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-drug-prices_us_597f4546e4b0da64e87aaebf

Don't see how anyone could reasonably reject such a measure.
Click to expand...
This helps poor people, fat chance getting republicans to pass it.
The Mule said:
It should've been Bernie Sanders... IT SHOULD'VE BEEN BERNIE SANDERS!
Click to expand...
Whether it was Bernie or Hillary if republicans hold the house it probably would have been a similar to the "nothing gets passed even if its good for Americans" situation Obama had. Luckily Trump is fucking insane so we sometimes get pushback.
 
S

Supha_Volt

Neo Member
It would be interesting to see how it plays out but I don't expect much unfortunately. I hope people start talking and thinking more about these things general.
 
K

kirblar

Member
ChainedMaster said:
That doesn't apply here since it's medications whose research was funded by the government.
Click to expand...
It's possible for there to be overlap here if it was funded in part by them (is a tax rebate considered funding?, for example) and that's something you have to be careful to not hit.

This is not to say that drug pricing doesn't need changes and regulations because of course it does. (It'd be nice if the federal government could actually play hardball, for instance!)
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Other said:
How about just banning advertising for prescription medications to mainstream consumers altogether like all the sane countries?
Click to expand...

Drug companies deserve the ability to get the word out about a new drug, but it's way past the point of reasonable at the moment.

Additionally it would be a tight-rope walk constitutionally with the current SC being free speech zealots.
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
YesThatGuy said:
Oh, look! Socialism! And some people says it doesn't work!
Click to expand...

We already have had socialism in this country forever. The military industrial complex is socialism for days, but nobody complains about that, unless it comes time to help the citizens, then its a bad word and we can't afford it. Its not even worth discussing.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Collective social benefits (welfare or otherwise) are not "socialism"!

Marx did not invent welfare, military forces, or other public subsidies.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Suikoguy said:
Drug companies deserve the ability to get the word out about a new drug
Click to expand...

Why?

Seriously. What possible benefit is there? You can't even get the drug without going through a doctor. Drug companies already hire professionals explicitly to market* to doctors. Why do they also need the ability to advertise a product to you that you're not even legally allowed to purchase without a third party's consent?


* Bribe, mostly
 
M

MrSunshine

Member
The Wart said:
I'm generally sympathetic to the notion that drug development is risky and costly as hell, and so pharmaceutical monopolies are preferable to greatly reduced drug development overall.

But if the Govt is paying such a large portion of the costs of R&D and clinical trials, then yeah, wtf? That's a straight up government handout.

Edit: having said that, I don't particularly trust the HuffPo to accurately describe the nuances of the situation.
Click to expand...

Any credible analysis of drug development costs concludes that they are insufficient to explain their cost on the US market. This source mentions that much of the research occurs at academic institutions. Here's another source. And another, though this one only peripherally addresses costs vs. R&D. (Not suggesting these are the most conclusive, in fact I dimly recall one showing that pharma R&D budgets are comparable to general industry, these are just the ones that came up in a minute and a half of Google searches.)

In multiple ways, analysis of the data indicates that the operation of health care in the US is simply wrong. This is not a matter of debate in which rational people can disagree. The removal of private entities from health care demonstrably serves the public interest. It can't be contested. It's supported by a variety of data and can only be opposed for reasons of greed or philosophically invalid ideology. That nationalization of health care is even slightly controversial illustrates how little correct reasoning matters in this political climate.
 
Master Of Illusion

Master Of Illusion

Member
Coming from a person not entirely in favor of Sanders' universal policies he toted in his campaign; this is a sensible, Centrist measure. I dig it.

Oh wait, Trump dick-riders gonna mess this up too. Fuck...
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
pigeon said:
Why?

Seriously. What possible benefit is there? You can't even get the drug without going through a doctor. Drug companies already hire professionals explicitly to market* to doctors. Why do they also need the ability to advertise a product to you that you're not even legally allowed to purchase without a third party's consent?


* Bribe, mostly
Click to expand...


Why should they not be allowed a degree of advertising? In many cases they spent the money on the R&D, Clinical Trials, etc.

Ironically, the only way it may pass the 1st amendment might be a blanket ban on drug advertising.

But, I think a bigger issue is the "Drug Rep" problem you mention.

This is getting a bit off topic though.

MrSunshine said:
In multiple ways, analysis of the data indicates that the operation of health care in the US is simply wrong. This is not a matter of debate in which rational people can disagree. The removal of private entities from health care demonstrably serves the public interest. It can't be contested. It's supported by a variety of data and can only be opposed for reasons of greed or philosophically invalid ideology. That nationalization of health care is even slightly controversial illustrates how little correct reasoning matters in this political climate.
Click to expand...

Please read up on how other countries do healthcare.
You seem to only think a nationalized system works, but many countries have successfully done it in other ways.

Cow Mengde said:
GAF would reject it cause it's Bernie.
Click to expand...

This sure is productive!
Great job!
 
V

Violet_0

Banned
recently watched a documentary about the US healthcare system (or more like the lack thereof, amirite). One guy was driving over the border to Canada to get medication to treat his diabetes because the price difference was something like 1000%, iirc. Apparently, a huge number of other Americans do too. And yeah, I know, the Simpsons did it
 
M

MrSunshine

Member
Suikoguy said:
Please read up on how other countries do healthcare.
You seem to only think a nationalized system works, but many countries have successfully done it in other ways.
Click to expand...

Your condescension is hilariously misplaced. I'd advise against it in the future.

While considerations of market operation and empirical observation both support nationalized systems, you can change "nationalization of" to "dominant public involvement in" if you like ...
 
D

DarkKyo

Member
Suikoguy said:
*sigh*

The only examples in this thread are from Berniebros complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume they are male? Can females not be Sanders supporters for some odd reason? I should tell my Bernie-supporting girlfriend that apparently she is a "bro" according to you.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
MrSunshine said:
Your condescension is hilariously misplaced. I'd advise against it in the future.

While considerations of market operation and empirical observation both support nationalized systems, you can change "nationalization of" to "dominant public involvement in" if you like ...
Click to expand...

Hey, i'm not the one spouting off definitions I don't have any idea what they mean.
As evidenced by equating "nationalization of" and "dominant public involvement in".

After all Nationalized is defined as
Transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.
Click to expand...

It's no wonder I got confused!

The UK sits on the nationalized end of the spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_England
While a system like Germany sits on the other end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Both seem pretty effective.

DarkKyo said:
Why do you assume they are male? Can females not be Sanders supporters for some odd reason? I should tell my Bernie-supporting girlfriend that apparently she is a "bro" according to you.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious right now...

The Mule said:
Yep.

Under investigation. Not proven guilty.
Click to expand...

It's so funny seeing that argument now.
Not necessarily directed at you btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine Over 90% Effective, applying for FDA authorization later this month
2
67
9K
TaylorSwiftFan replied
Executive Order by Trump is Expected to Increase Drug Prices
2
51
12K
JCG replied
Break up the cable monopolies? Democrats propose new competition laws
2 3
102
8K
Crayon replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton announces plan to respond to medicine price hikes, like EpiPen
2 3
142
13K
JustenP88 replied
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
2
98
9K
GrizzleBoy replied
Top Bottom