HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

drug prices

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 6/10/2015 1:55 PM (GMT 0)
I'm not at all sure I understand all the implications of this, what it all means, but it seems it might possibly alter things for those of us who pay for any expensive drugs, or maybe our insurance premiums, etc. Hopefully this is not considered political, if so then mods just end it, no problem. So, FWIW:

www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/business/international/us-shifts-stance-on-drug-pricing-in-pacific-trade-pact-talks-document-reveals.html?_r=0

Somebody said...
Opponents of both the Pacific deal and the legislation to grant trade promotion authority have long targeted the pharmaceutical issue. Foreign governments and health care activists have accused pharmaceutical giants, mostly based in the United States, of protecting profits over public health, especially in poor countries where neither the government nor consumers can afford to pay rates anywhere close to those charged in the West.

That fight re-emerged in the Pacific trade negotiations, which involve countries with strong cost-containment policies, like New Zealand, as well as poor countries like Peru and Vietnam.

The agreement “will increase the cost of medicines worldwide, starting with the 12 countries that are negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Judit Rius Sanjuan, a lawyer at Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization that provides medical care in more than 60 countries.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Drug companies, however, say they need to be able to charge fair prices to compensate for the billions of dollars and decades of research that go into their medicines.

Posted 6/10/2015 7:32 PM (GMT 0)
So long as it stays a discussion of fact / what is in the treaty proposal without political comment, we're good. But I suspect it will go off the rails eventually
devil
Posted 6/10/2015 10:49 PM (GMT 0)

142 said...
So long as it stays a discussion of fact / what is in the treaty proposal without political comment, we're good. But I suspect it will go off the rails eventually
devil

Usually does, but looks like it's going to take a while, as yours is the only response so far, and even that is just a clarification of the rules and a prediction! smilewinkgrin So it might all be too boring to gather responses!
Posted 6/11/2015 12:53 AM (GMT 0)
While the drug companies claim they spend billions on research a check of there annual reports shows they spend MORE money on advertising promoting their "blockbuster" prescription drugs on television and in magazines...The Marketing Department gets more funding than the R&D department...

Everyone should read the interesting that occurred over the HIV/AIDS drugs. How CIPLA, an Indian drug company developed a one pill once a day combination drug that saved Africa from AIDS...
Posted 6/11/2015 6:16 AM (GMT 0)
+1 to Fairwind's post. Very well said, right on target. As they say, follow the money trail and the all mighty bottom line. Nothing to do with politics, its all about the money, not even about the patient's needing the meds.
Posted 6/13/2015 2:02 AM (GMT 0)
Does anyone actually know what is in this bill? Things seem to be unusually secret.
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/business/business-leaders-react-with-dismay-to-defeat-of-trade-bill.html?_r=0

Somebody said...
Bill Lane, director of global government affairs for Caterpillar, echoed Mr. Hufbauer’s view that the door was not completely shut. “Even though the process is temporarily stalled, we are optimistic,” he said.


Mark Grayson, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry trade group, said that the group was hopeful “that the House will pass the bill so it can get to the president’s desk.”

He declined to comment on the group’s position on the overall pact, saying it was still being negotiated. But he made clear that the pharmaceutical industry was hoping for what he called “strong” intellectual property provisions to be included in the trade pact.

He dismissed concerns that the pact could limit access to generic drugs, noting that the overwhelming majority of prescriptions filled in the United States were for generic medications, despite strong intellectual property laws in this country.

Generic drug industry officials hailed the vote, however.

Heather Bresch, the chief executive of Mylan, a generic drug maker, applauded the defeat on Friday by the House, saying it would give her more time to lobby against the trade pact.

She and other leaders in the generic drug industry have argued that the pact goes too far in protecting the patents of the brand-name drug industry and would block access to generic drugs around the world.

“I think it’s scary and dangerous that the president is looking for this kind of authority on a trade bill that I think has serious flaws in it,” she said. “It’s setting the global generic industry back 30 years.”

“I’m thankful for this reconsideration, and I’m going to use this window to try and educate and let our voice be heard,” she said.

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply