“This was an unexpected victory in a long fight against an illegal cartel of three corporations who have raised their insulin prices in lockstep.”
The Biden Administration pleasantly stunned health care reform advocates Tuesday by including short-acting insulin in its list of 10 drugs for which Medicare will negotiate lower prices, power vested in the White House by the Inflation Reduction Act.
The IRA was passed in the face of one of the heftiest barrages of lobbying in congressional history, with the pharmaceutical industry spending more than $700 million over 2021 and 2022 — several times more than the second- and third-ranking industries — much of it aimed at stopping the legislation, watering it down, or undermining its implementation.
They need to find a way to negotiate the price down for everyone, not just retirees. Kids need insulin.
And after that, epi pens.
Here’s some good news about that with California making its own insulins:
The state-label insulins will cost no more than $30 per 10 milliliter vial, and no more than $55 for a box of five pre-filled pen cartridges — for both insured and uninsured patients. The medicines will be available nationwide, the governor’s office said.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/19/1164572757/california-contract-cheap-insulin-calrx
That is really great news. Thanks!
I wish the process would be repeated by the federal government, for every similar drug that could be produced with their patent’s expiration.
deleted by creator
I’ve always wondered why those that might need an epinephrine shot don’t keep a vial and needle on hand. A vial of epinephrine goes for about $35. No judgement, just genuinely curious.
You ever try to draw from a syringe while you’re hypotensive, gasping for breath, and panicking as you’re about to pass out? That’s the primary innovation of the epi-pen. Remove cap, stab through clothes, press button.
Granted, syringe and vial would be better than not having epinephrine though.
You can prefill the needle and keep it in a pencil case. Syringes work fine through clothes, although not ideal.
I’m an insulin dependent (T1) diabetic. I keep a glucagon kit on hand in case of an emergency. It’s a syringe and vial that needs to be mixed. The idea is that if you’re unconscious, someone that is close can administer. If I were severely hypoglycemic I’d have problems, but my partner wouldn’t. I could pull it off if it were prefilled, but you can’t prefill glucagon.
Edit: I totally get it and agree though. Life saving medicine shouldn’t have any barriers.
You have to be careful about what tissue you put the epinephrine in. If you don’t hit the right tissue, it can not function or cause you to go into tachycardia. When your brain is also potentially not working super great due to low blood pressure (the shock part of anaphylactic shock), it’s best to have a point and click interface.
Where are all of the “think of the children” folk? Not important now that they’re born.
“If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re fucked.” – George Carlin
Except even that isn’t true, because those “choose life” assholes don’t give two fucks about poor women without insurance being unable to afford pre-natal care. If your fetus dies from something preventable, fuck you lady.
Don’t worry, they’re too busy actively using children as pawns to fuck over the Internet, labor laws and trans people.
Children also make good target practice for guns in schools.
The problem is the government can’t set the price of goods in a private contract between two non-government entities, which is what would need to happen. The various bills you see in states setting co-pay caps is about as close as we can get, and that only happens because the government CAN regulate insurance companies and the policies they offer. While that might, eventually, put pressure on the insurance companies to demand lower prices from the manufacturers, it’s a long way disconnected from the price paid by the patient.
And regulating copays doesn’t help people without insurance at all.
That’s why this is such an important step. When prescription coverage was added to Medicare, the ability of the government to negotiate drug prices was specifically striped from the bill. The Inflation Reduction Act added it back, finally. And it’s a huge win. Medicare and Medicaid are enormous programs, and when they throw their weight around, they can affect the markets they’re in dramatically. It’s why the drug companies are already filing suit.
But the real solution isn’t trying to force private insurance companies to play ball, or make drug manufacturers sell at a low price, it’s to leverage that giant market pressure and expand Medicare eligibility to everyone. And if you’re worried about funding? Don’t be. Unlike social security, Medicare’s tax has no maximum wage.
Yup. Everything i hear about health care cost is leverage. I’m glad to see this.
Laws aren’t real. The government isn’t real. Money isn’t real.
You’re not listing good reasons. Just trite bullshit.
What did @evatronic@lemm.ee specifically say that’s not factually true?
Uh… What?
Laws are absolutely real, and this is a testable theory. Go break a law and put in no effort to hide what you’ve done. See what happens.
What you mean to say is that we can change laws, and that’s true. To do that, you’d need to elect more representatives, nationally, who agree with you - because the government is also very real.
You live in the real world, whether you like it or not.
There was fringe on the flag!
The pharmaceutical industry spent $700 million lobbying against this? What a bunch of assholes.
And they’ve already filed lawsuits:
The suits make similar and overlapping claims that Medicare negotiations are unconstitutional.
The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.
The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.
They also contend that the talks violate the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to engage in the process.
Just ridiculous.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/29/10-drugs-to-face-medicare-price-negotiations-see-the-list.html
A great way to tell that a business is making way too much money is when they can afford to hire monkey cages full of lawyers to fling every terrible legal argument they can think of at you in the hope that one of them somehow sticks.
It is more cynical than that. They want to out spend the resources available to fight them, not win a legal case.
I don’t think they’re going to outspend the federal government though.
It’s not a cruise missile, there are limits.
Especially when they already own half the Senate.
They don’t need to. They need to outspend the specific attorney’s dept. Plus, many are counting on a change in administration before any consequences of merit.
deleted by creator
One thing that bothers me about the law. This kinda thing. There should be some sorta limit on how many arguments you can present. Multiple bad arguments does not equal a solid one.
And yet in every other country where they have to bargain against a centralized healthcare system, they are able to provide a decent price.
The US needs to take decisive action against these sociopaths.
Preferably with guillotines.
The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use.
It will be interesting to watch this shake out, because this decision could have a lot of knock-off effects when it comes to further price negotiations by the government across a wide array of sectors.
“Below market rate”
If only looking at the USA where pharmaceutical companies are free to do as they please, but probably still higher than in any other rich countries in the world.
Yeah I think that’s going to end up being a pivotal distinction here, as these are companies with global reach and thus “market rate” will be a difficult concept to defend.
Exclusivity contracts would be one thing, but suggesting this is an egregious step by the US government is going to be a difficult case to prove imo.
Their proof will be with “vacations” etc for the judges sitting the trial.
Charge what they please. They are heavily regulated in what they can do. Which is why stuff like the J&J arsenic event is a once a decade thing vs a constant thing.
They likely are subsidized by the federal government anyway. As far as I’m concerned, any time the government gives money to a corporation, they’re no longer a private company until they pay it back.
Just reading this it looks like they had this in their back pocket for a while lol
Oh yeah, lawyers start preparing these lawsuits as soon as an announcement is made (in this case the legislation being announced). They just don’t file them until absolutely necessary.
Market rates aren’t reasonable compensation.
The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.
Sure Jan. 🙄
" Wealthy residents raise $60,000 to stop homeless shelter being built in San Francisco", was a headline last week.
It’s not just an 'industry" thing. It’s a "people"thing
When your reaction to poor, sick human beings getting the medicine they need without losing everything else in their lives is disappointment, you’re a bad person.
Fuck market capitalism and the sociopaths it creates.
Edit: and of course they’re actively suing from their steel towers for the right to continue to gouge sick, poor people deeper into poverty. What a humane economic system, amirite?
Watching the anime called “The Great Cleric”. It’s pretty accurately describes this in a fantasy setting.
Both parties have let them do just that for 43 years. Of course they’re gonna sue. Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if a lawsuit becomes an excuse for Democrats to throw out exceedingly beneficial legislation like this.
Meanwhile, those same companies sell for a fraction of the price all around the world.
You’re not kidding. Somebody did a survey in 2018 of insulin prices around the world, and here are the top ten most expensive:
- United States — $98.70
- Chile — $21.48
- Mexico — $16.48
- Japan — $14.40
- Switzerland — $12.46
- Canada — $12.00
- Germany — $11.00
- Korea — $10.30
- Luxembourg — $10.15
- Italy — $10.03
The study revealed that the manufacturer price for any given type of insulin averaged five to ten times higher in the U.S. ($98.70 USD) than in all other OECD countries ($8.81 on average).
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country
Holy shit, the drop from the US to Chile is insane.
Where’s the antitrust suit when you need it, and how long before the the three mentioned companies start merging?
Won’t somebody think about the pharma shareholders!
I don’t know how this is a negotiation…big pharma overcharges the USA by a lot…we all know it. How is this not illegal? Why are they not held accountable for inflating prices for 1 group of people? Imagine if they did the to just a single race…black, white, Asian, whatever… Is t it the same thing?
I thought the issue was that it wasn’t legal for the gov to negotiate prices?
It’s not illegal because it isn’t illegal to set a price that the market can bear.
They’re not increasing prices for just one group of people, which may or may not be illegal, but rather setting a price for a given product.
This is the crux of why this has been such a tough nut to crack.
A product which is only necessary for one group of people. A group who, through circumstances likely beyond their control, need that medication to maintain a healthy life. Thinking of life saving medication as a product to be sold is the problem.
I don’t disagree with your intent, but this is not the way laws work in the United States. I generally share your opinion that our current methodology is not the way laws should work, but that does not change the present reality.
You asked, “How is this not illegal” and I answered that question.
I’m not the one who asked that. I think “How is this not illegal” wasn’t intended to be taken as a literal request to explain our current legal situation in this country but more an exasperated rhetorical question to underline the jarring and obvious moral hypocrisy in our laws.
That makes sense. I often interpret people too literally, and to me the person seemed to be literally asking why this wasn’t illegal.
I understand the frustration, and to me, the current legal framework is the source of the frustration, which is why I thought the question was both literal and apt.
Insurance companies when you need to use their service (which you pay monthly for):
- sorry I’m your doctor now and I’m not going to pay for that test Insurance companies when they need to bribe law makers:
- money go brrrtr
They throw a few million in the right pockets and they make billions in return, best investment they ever made.
As someone from the UK, I don’t know what to make of the Biden administration.
I see positive news articles about what they’re doing, then I see people (not just right wing) saying it’s going poorly…
Obviously things can always be better and there are going to be areas where they’re failing, but how actually is it going over all?
Biden is fine. A lot of people are looking for someone who is going to revolutionize things overnight. A lot of folks also like to give the President blame or credit for things out of his control. Overall I’ve been pleasantly surprised. All I really wanted was not Trump, but Biden has been a lot better than that.
ive been waiting 40 years for democrats to do something that didnt line insurance companies pockets. im still waiting. how much longer until this ‘revolution’ youre expecting? i suspect ill be long dead.
biden is an ancient husk of a politician, doing the bare minimum that the dems have been doing for as long as i can remember. this is not revolution, this is conservatism.
its sad that this ‘bare minimum’ is now seen as ‘a lot better than not trump’
Try reading what you’re responding to again, slowly. I think you misread.
If you want a revolution then you need to get people on board with it first, not politicians.
And it seems like America’s split down the middle between two groups with very different opinions, so I don’t see that happening anytime remotely soon.
The far left is basically as bad as maga when it comes to wanting a functioning government. They just want their way and they don’t much care about how it happens.
Your view of reality is skewed.
If we pretend Trump wasn’t a thing, I’d say Biden is really living up to his campaign promise of “nothing will fundamentally change.” By that I mean, he hasn’t personally done anything amazing or terrible, and he hasn’t gotten in the way of others, either.
For instance, this has the fingerprints of Bernie Sanders all over it, who chairs several committees in congress, including the relevant one for this. Has Biden stopped Bernie Sanders? No, and while I wish that fact wasn’t a win, it is.
Bernie isn’t alone in being the only good thing about our current government, either, but Biden also hasn’t removed some of the terrible things the trump administration set up. The Environmental Protection Agency has rolled back a bunch of things I’m very upset about. It is my personal belief that he’s heavily influenced by certain groups (insurance) but is trying in other areas.
Biden isn’t at all supporting policies that are just common sense if you live anywhere else, and while the UK isn’t the best, I’ve discussed this with a British friend and I still include them in that. In short, you have more protections from your government that they need to try to remove first.
In my opinion if Biden had been elected after Obama or after a normal Republican he would’ve basically had a quiet presidency and been one of the ones you don’t really mention in history because nothing happened. Standard calls for corruption, but not worse than any regular senators. In today’s world, that’s positive, with Republican candidates promising to abolish the department of education, but in another world where things aren’t full of neonazis and fascists, I’d be saying it’s awful, because I would have wanted a president that would change things for the better, and now I’m just beaten down enough to be ok with “Nothing will fundamentally change.”
If only we could pretend Trump wasn’t a thing… sadly the courts, and many government agencies, will never be the same.
I know. I want what he’s done to be a bad term, like it would’ve been. But the bar is just so low. Mediocrity is good because the bad are actively bad (and fascist)
" I’d say Biden is really living up to his campaign promise of “nothing will fundamentally change.”"
Oh hey, people are still using the purposefully false claim where Biden in a speech to rich people said he was going to raise their taxes and they should be fine with him doing it because they’re rich and nothing will fundamentally change about their lifestyle.
But, hey, keep taking that statement out of context like the trash you are.
First off, good for you, deciding someone is trash for having an opinion, I’m sure your parents are very proud.
I didn’t get that from the buzz afterwards surrounding that quote, I got it from watching the debate live. But you know what? Those rich assholes’ lives SHOULD change. If their lives aren’t different, even if they got a higher tax rate, then it’s not enough, and without them having to tighten their belts, everyone lower than them will continue to starve.
He’s Joe Biden, the dude who attacked social security as a senator. Saying that to the rich IS saying that to everyone, for him. And look, wow, during his term as president, nothing has fundamentally changed. Go figure.
I feel like he isn’t a deranged narcissist who would nuke his own country if it somehow benefited him.
The bar is on the floor for the Republicans.
To borrow a couple of lines written for the UK in the 60s:
Think the time is right for palace revolution
But where I live the game to play is compromise solutionBiden is a well meaning old man whittling away at the problems the best he can within the rules of the system. The problem is that the system has been rigged against working people for at least 40 years now; some people feel the problems go deeper than what you can solve by being by the book and doing politics as usual.
Don’t forget that we have right of center (democrats), right (republicans) and left of center (bernie sanders).
Democrats are still rich and love the lobby money.
Clintons have invested in privatizing prisons for example.
It’s not just the republicans that take advantage of the single ideology vote.
the truth is, biden and his peers are conservatives who do not believe that healthcare is a right. its only for those that can afford it. They attempt to appease the masses with these generous rebates on life saving drugs.
if the powers that be really cared about humans they would be pushing mass changes to the entire system, not placating businesses by keeping prices high while also pretending to negotiate for the unwashed.
follow the money, and all the money says “we dont care about healthcare or human beings”
that whole line about “but we cant affect change overnight. those crazy progressives!”. motherfucker, ive been waiting 40+ years for them to do fucking anything that didnt line some providers pockets.
current democrats are fucking useless.
I have no idea why you got downvoted on this comment. With the exception of the Democratic Socialist subset, most Democrats are pretty conservative. Remove the white Christian bigotry and they’re pretty similar Regan era Republicans.
Obama himself is quoted as saying that some of his own policies would make him a “moderate conservative” by 1980’s standards. Then consider that Biden was picked as his running mate to appeal to the wing of the party that was more conservative than him.
Troglodytes that pretend they are above the team-sport aspect of politics fucking HATE when you point out what a limp dick milquetoast piece of shit Biden is and how his administration loves to shout about putting band-aids on bullet wounds, and the fucking neoliberals eat that shit up like candy.
PS:
fuck capitalism.
“I have no idea why you got downvoted on this comment.”
Literally no downvotes on the comment you’re responding to. Until me, of course. You can have one too.
I have an honest question. In the current political climate, how would Democrats go about changing everything?
I cannot caps this enough.
ABOUT. GODDAMN. TIME.
Good!!! Stop the pharmacist companies
Dumb idea, I know nothing about this all. What about alternatively opening up across-the-border purchases, allowing people to legally buy from other countries at a fraction of current US prices. Drug companies can still set their US, uncontrolled prices at whatever they want, & no one has to buy it from them. It’d be like, a Free Market at work. I know this is oversimplified & there’s a lot of complications I’m not aware of, but, just a thought. Also, speaking of unconstitutional, isn’t group collusion to manipulate the market a violation of Sherman Anti-Trust law? Just saying.
How do you make sure the drugs purchased overseas are safe? FDA has pretty tight control over the industry in the US to maintain that here.
For sure a valid question. My presumption is that the same drugs legally produced & sold under that country’s regulations would have a reasonable factor of safety. Good enough for their own people anyway. I think also if I’m faced with the decision, no insulin because I can’t afford it, or drugs only approved to Country X standards, I’m already in a risky situation. For sure some people are already doing this & having to do so illegally.
This is, quite frankly, a very poor assumption depending on where you are getting your drugs from. For example, Dr. Reddy in India is the equivalent of buying a “Channel” knock off purse from China. It looks like the real thing, it might even somewhat function like the real thing. But it some serious flaws.
European drugs, alternatively, are often literally the exact same drug for cheaper because the EMA is much stricter about pricing. But there are also laws that prevent exporting it from EU countries just as there are laws preventing importing into the US. Because international trade is not open.
Source: I work in Pharma.
this is going to kill stock prices. sell! sell! sell!
Removed by mod
Didnt trump tried to do this?
Did he do it?
