A Small Important Fact on Pharmaceuticals and the Free Market Argument.

[The Lone Liberal]

The current Medicare proposal prohibits the government from negotiating pharmaceutical prices. The argument being put forward by the republicans is that the free market is a better mechanism by which to control cost. The one small thing that is overlooked is that the pharmaceutical industry is not and never has been a “free market.” All new products offered by the pharmaceutical industry are given a long term protection under the patent laws. Therefore, instead of being a “free market” you in fact have a monopoly. The other determinant of a “free market” is perfect information for the consumer or the payer. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry information the final payer, the patient, has to rely upon a biased source for any information. The physicians are paid by the pharmaceutical industry to prescribe their products.

So when the other side says, “let the free market control.” Your answer should be the question, “what free market?”

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. And the gods forbid that the pharmaceutical companies...

...get rid of their higly paid lobbyists who make certain the government doesn't allow competitive pricing of drugs to bring down the consumer's cost. Oh no, we can't have that. Plus, don't get me started on the folly of advertising such and such a wonder drug all over the boob tube and in magazines that do not describe what the damned pill is supposed to do -- just "Ask your doctor".

[OldSoldier]

8. "Ask your doctor"--there's a reason

If your ad says what the drug does, they also have to list all the contraindications and side effects.

So if you say that Mycoxaflopen (sildafenil hydrochloride) temporarily relieves symptoms of impotence in men between 18 and 81, you also have to say that in controlled studies, 15 percent of men experienced hair growing on their palms, 11 percent of the men's penises fell off, 53 percent developed unusable, painful erections that lasted longer than two years, 22 percent grew plantar warts, 14 percent suffered uncontrollable urges to enjoy connubial relations with barnyard swine, 11 percent grew a third foot, 18 percent died, 29 percent of the men's marriages ended, 42 percent turned gay, and 63 percent developed more than one side effect.

"Hmmm..." said the prospective patient..."I can take this drug and one of three things will happen: I'll die, my dick will never get soft again, or I'll have three feet. Thank you no."

[redqueen]

9. Don't blame lobbyists

Blame the whores that listen to them.

[girl gone mad]

2. Not only that..

but we subsidize these companies. We foot the bill for much of the research and development. And, of course, taking these drugs is a matter of life and death for many people. The idea of a free market is that people will choose another brand or just choose not to buy a product if the price is too high. That doesn't work when someone might not be healthy enough to work or could die without the product.

Of course, you know alll of these free-market idiots would scream bloody murder if the price of their antibiotics become affordable.

[highlonesome]

3. what's long term protection?

Please clarify. I thought new pharmaceuticals were protected by patents for only seven years before allowing generic production. And seven years may sound like a lot, but it also takes probably at least three years to go through FDA approval and another one or two from there to the inspection and licensing of a manufacturing facility.

To be fair that is at least part of the reason for high drug prices. As we advance, drugs are being developed to fit smaller and smaller niches and therefore markets reducing the potential for retrun on investment. That, combined with the millions and millions of dollars required to get a drug from conception, through phase I, II, and III clinical trial to market launch imparts a pretty high risk on the whole venture. In order to get investors to front the money, companies have to promise high returns if successful in exchange for the risk.

[The Lone Liberal]

5. You Can Identify a Predator by His Action

A predator can also be identified by his action. A wolf can be said to be a wolf by reason that he eats the sheep. The same can be said of the monopolistic protection of the pharmaceutical industry. They are understood to be economically advantageous to the pharmaceutical industry by reason of how hard the industry fights to protect that advantage. Over the last few years the pharmaceutical manufactures have gone to such lengths as to buy-off companies that have proposed a generic substitute to a single source drug.

One other tactic is the extension of the patent by adding a inert salt to the formula so that the patent can be extended another seven years. Few drugs come off patent at the end of the initial seven years.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. right

:nopity: somehow I cannot find it within my heart to feel sorry for the pharmaceutical monopoly. They are driving this Medicare bill and they are driving many seniors out on the ice. Why do you think seniors travel to Canada? Same drugs--much cheaper--not as many problems in Canada? Ask your doctor-these TV ads over and over are for the benefit of the stockholders--not the patient--doctors should be the ones targeted and educated by the drug co. not the client, for crying out loud. Prilosec--good god--ads all over the place to push this newest, miracle for heartburn, or maybe it is the newest sound bite it is pushing--acid reflux!!!!! If you don't havve it, by the time you get brainwashed into thinking you do have it, you will certainly have it- then, there are those magnificent expensive store displays and the fancy packaging--Prilosec is found on a display just outside the pharmacist's window--Tums is out--too boring.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Thanks for posting. Drug companies stand to reap $125B from giveaway

That is, taxpayer giveaway. Drug stocks soared when the Conference Report was agreed to and sent to the House and Senate for final passage!

Free market, my ass, this is corporate crony capitalism--Bush's campaign contributors are set to reap billions off the backs of taxpayers.

Their investment in Buscho has indeed paid off big time--asCheney would say. We need public campaign financing of federal elections so Congress will represent us, not primarily corporations.

Remember when you could take a $100 tax credit for donations to the Presidential campaign--am not sure if it included Congress. This is the way we need to go. This was enacted after Watergate, but it was repealed. Citizens ought to be encouraged to participate again, and this would be a great way to accomplish this goal.

[prolesunited]

6. Any time you have an industry pushing

for legislation you know it's NOT going to be good for consumers. Of course, the liberal media is doing such an excellent job in showing you it is such a huge windfall for the pharma industry.


How much was spent on lobbying
The trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, will spend at least $150 million in the coming year, representing an increase of 23 percent over this year's budget of $121.7 million, fighting price controls around the world, subsidizing "like-minded organizations" and paying economists to produce op-ed articles and monographs in response to critics.

Where the money (which comes from dues will total $143.8 million in the coming year, an increase of 24 percent) is going:
— The drug trade group plans to spend $1 million for an "intellectual echo chamber of economists — a standing network of economists and thought leaders to speak against federal price control regulations through articles and testimony, and to serve as a rapid response team."

— In its budget for the fiscal year that begins on July 1, the pharmaceutical lobby earmarks $72.7 million for advocacy at the federal level, directed mainly at Congress; $4.9 million to lobby the Food and Drug Administration; and $48.7 million for advocacy at the state level.

— In addition, the budget sets aside $17.5 million to fight price controls and protect patent rights in foreign countries and in trade negotiations.

— The PhRMA budget allocates $1 million "to change the Canadian health care system" and $450,000 to stem the flow of low-price prescription drugs from online pharmacies in Canada to customers in the United States.

Much more on this topic here:
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030602123259.asp

How much pharma industry stands to gain
An estimated 61.1 percent of the Medicare dollars that will be spent to buy more prescriptions will remain in the hands of drug makers as added profits. The windfall means an estimated $139 billion dollars in increased profits over eight years for the world's most profitable industry.

At $17 billion annually, this means about a 38 percent rise in drug maker profit.

The legislation explicitly prohibits Medicare from acting to negotiate or contain the drug prices paid under the new program. Of the $228 billion of $400 billion in new federal spending over next eight years, 75.6 percent will go to drug manufacturers as gross income.

Drug makers' net increase in profit is estimated at $139.2 billion over the eight-year life of the program.

PDF report on New Medicare Rx Benefit Means Big Profits for Drug Makers
http://www.healthreformprogram.org/

Bernie Sanders has an excellent, easily digestible Web site covering the pharma industry:
http://bernie.house.gov/prescriptions/index.asp