island time said...
If it weren’t for American ingenuity driven by free enterprise and competition, they’d be no Entyvio and precious few other drugs for UC or any other ailment for that matter.
America cures the world. Someone has to pay for that research. And that bill is paid by American Pharmaceutical companies.
America invents it and sells it to the world.
😊 on Humira
Don’t believe everything that the Big Pharma lobbyist tell you, they are out to pad their wallets and corporate profits. They’d rather charge $600 or more a month for insulin and have the less fortunate ration or skip their doses than provide $35 insulin.
If we capped Medicare drug pricing it would have very little effect on drug development; studies show that we might lose 2 drugs coming to market over a decade. Much of the beginnings of development of drugs start with public funding.
https://hbr.org/2021/10/the-u-s-can-lower-drug-prices-without-sacrificing-innovation{Legislation giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices in the United States would make their life-saving potential immediately available to millions of Americans who cannot now afford them, thus extending lives and alleviating suffering. The pharmaceutical industry, however, has done a masterful job of arguing that these Americans must suffer in the short term since lower prices would gut long-term innovation in drug development.
This is a false choice. We need not trade the certainty of saved lives now for the possibility of saved lives in the future.
The reason: Large pharmaceutical companies are nowhere near as important to real drug innovation as they purport to be. Furthermore, smart policy changes can sustain and increase the pace of life-changing breakthroughs in biomedicine through increased funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), cutting the costs and accelerating the speed of clinical trials, and reforming patent law to stop innovation-blocking abuses used by Big Pharma to prevent new drugs from entering the market.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that reducing the pharmaceutical industry’s revenues would result in two fewer drugs in the next decade, 23 fewer in the following decade, and 34 fewer drugs in the third decade. Predictions 20 to 30 years out are necessarily imprecise, but in any case, many of those projected new therapies would likely be neither novel nor more valuable than existing drugs. That is, they wouldn’t be innovative.}
TWO FEWER DRUGS TO MARKET OVER A DECADE, that’s it! We would have a much better standard of living in the US and our average life expectancy would probably increase overall.